TRIAL – Instructions on threshold, apportionment in error; no DV for settling defendant: COMBS V. STORTZ (COA 1/9/2009)

Combs v. Stortz
2007-CA-001232
01/09/2009
2009 WL 50174
Opinion by Judge Caperton; Judge Keller and Wine concurred.

The Court reversed and remanded a judgment of the circuit court entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding liability but awarding no damages on appellant’s claims for negligence arising from an automobile accident.

The Court held that 1) the damage instructions impermissibly linked the two threshold questions of monetary damages for reasonably necessary medical expenses exceeding $1,000 and the specifically enumerated physical or permanent injuries, loss, or death, as allowed by KRS 304.39-060(2)(b); 2) appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on the liability of a settling party; 3) the apportionment instruction as to the liability of the settling party was not improper and even so, any error was harmless; 4) the trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding reference to the insurer as the provider of UIM coverage; 4) the trial court did not err in admitting expert opinion testimony that took into account the mechanism of injury, appellant’s medical history and available medical records, in addition to the information derived from a physical examination; 5) the trial court did not err by allowing testimony regarding prior workers’ compensation claims and insurance payments for impeachment purposes; 6) the trial court did not err in excluding expert medical testimony regarding appellant’s condition that was couched in terms of possibility, rather than probability or certainty, and that was not timely produced; 7) appellant placed her medical condition at issue and therefore, defense counsel did not improperly cross-examine her regarding past workers’ compensation claims, past treatment and injury claims with past employers; 8) while cross-examination about appellant’s nephew’s employment by appellant’s counsel was admitted in error, the error was harmless; and 9) expert testimony by an auto mechanic regarding alleged brake failure was properly admitted.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.