Opinion ID: 848689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a new trial on all issues is required

Text: Although I agree with the majority that decedent’s pretreatment negligence is a matter properly submitted to the jury, I do not agree that the new trial should be limited to damages only. Because of the trial court’s ruling that all decedent’s pretreatment negligence could not be considered, defendants were limited to submitting evidence that decedent was comparatively negligent from April 7 onward, when she first visited the emergency room. Yet, it is apparent from that testimony that had a wider 3 scope of questioning been allowed, just as defendants’ expert testimony supported the proposition that her failure for ten days (April 7 through April 16) to take her medications was a proximate cause,1 it surely would have 1 One of defendants’ experts, Dr. Bradford Walters, testified as follows: Q. Does Mrs. Shinholster have a duty to take her medication as prescribed? A. She does.