© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
- Language
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Trial court erred in failing to grant motion for directed verdict on counterclaims for spoliation of the evidence and abuse of process. Concealment does not give rise to a spoliation of the evidence claim. The absence of any evidence of an ulterior motive warranted a directed verdict on the abuse of process claim. Trial court properly granted directed verdict on plaintiffs claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel were inapplicable.
An informed consent plaintiff was required to produce expert testimony showing it to be more likely than not that the undisclosed greater risk of nerve damage from back surgery proximately caused his chronic pain, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a directed verdict. The plaintiff suffers severe, chronic pain after undergoing a second discectomy to repair a herniated disc in his back. The first surgery had a positive outcome until the plaintiff reinjured himself while running. The defendant performed both surgeries.
statute of frauds, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, App.R. 16(A)(7), promissory estoppel, hearsay, motion for a new trial
Cognovit promissory note; res judicata; directed verdict
negligence proximate cause some injury directed verdict new trial manifest weight expert testimony
The trial court did not err in granting the appellee a directed verdict on the invalidity of a release agreement. The evidence supports the jurys finding that the appellant had entered into a partnership or joint venture. The trial court did not err in preventing the appellant from presenting evidence or argument about the partnership or joint venture being dissolved. The trial court did not err in allowing the appellee to introduce evidence about liability insurance. The trial court did not err in denying the appellants motion for a directed verdict regarding whether a partnership or joint venture existed. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the issue of fraud and in denying the appellants motion for a directed verdict on that issue. The jurys verdict on the fra...
medical negligence; directed verdict; opening statement; Civ.R. 50(A)(1); motion for a new trial; Civ.R. 59(A); plaintiff's burden
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company