§ 34-18-26

Citation: § 34-18-26
Parent Document: Errico v. LaMountain, 713 A.2d 791 (1998)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 1998-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1902441/errico-v-lamountain/ ↗

Full Text

826 chars

Finally, the defendants dispute the trial justice’s instruction that the jury could award Errico compensation for her alleged future impairment and disability from the injuries she suffered in the fall. They claim that there was no competent medical testimony to substantiate such an instruction. However, we need not decide whether medical testimony normally would have been a necessary condition precedent to such an instruction because Errico testified without objection that she learned during a visit to her orthopedic physician that the continuing pain she was experiencing “would be permanent.” Having failed to object or to move to strike this testimony at trial, the defendants are unable to challenge on appeal the uncontested evidentiary predicate for this challenged future-loss instruction to the jury. Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text