SAME OTHER THAN THAT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED IN EXCLUDING AND OVERRULING REFERENCE TO AND/OR INTRODUCTION OF THE POLICE REPORT AND/OR CERTAIN EXCERPTS OF SAME REGARDING SEATBELT USAGE BY THE PLAINTIFF DOLORES JEAN CRAIG, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT PERMITTED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO INTRODUCE AND ENGAGE IN QUESTIONING REGARDING HEARSAY REFERENCES IN CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS WITH NO OTHER FOUNDATION, TESTIMONY OR INTERPRETATION OF SAME OTHER THAN THAT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING TRIAL OBJECTIONS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AND IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY INSOFAR AS THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY AND PREJUDICIALLY PERMITTED THE JURY TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED COMPARATIVE OR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF A NON-JOINED THIRD PARTY DRIVER (MALOVRH). *Page 602
IX THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AND TENDER OF AN ITEMIZED DAMAGE INTERROGATORY TO THE JURY IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL VERDICT FORM.