Opinion ID: 1489448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Misconduct of Dr. Eiseman and His Attorney

Text: Appellants argue they are entitled to a new trial because of the [m]isconduct... of the prevailing party, or of his attorney. CR 59.01(b). Appellants' claim that after stipulating shortly before the trial that he had deviated from the requisite standard of care in examining Michael's x-ray, Dr. Eiseman testified and his attorney argued that this deviation was inconsequential and that he was sorry for the mistake. Appellants argue that Dr. Eiseman and his counsel should not have been permitted to make these and similar statements to the jury since they had admitted his liability for Michael's injuries. However, Appellants' argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our tort law in that it assumes Dr. Eiseman's stipulation that he had violated the standard of care was equivalent to an admission of his liability for Michael's injuries, the ultimate issue in this case. In light of the foregoing, we have reviewed Dr. Eiseman's testimony and find no evidence of misconduct.