Opinion ID: 1058744
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: riverside hospital patient fall reports

Text: The Defendants next contend that the trial court erred in admitting statistical evidence about other patient falls at Riverside (the Fall Evidence). This evidence consisted of testimony based on a report generated by Riverside listing patient fall data from January through October 1997. In a pre-trial motion in limine, the Defendants argued that this information was irrelevant, prejudicial, and likely to confuse and mislead the jury. The Estate countered that the information was relevant to establishing notice under the punitive damage claim. The trial court agreed with the Estate and ruled that patient falls which took place after the patient had gotten out of bed were similar to Johnson's fall, and that data about those falls was admissible for purposes of notice for the punitive damage claim. The trial court suggested that a cautionary instruction could be given to the jury to clarify the purpose of such information. At the close of evidence, the Estate nonsuited the claim for punitive damages. The Defendants did not renew their objection to the Fall Evidence on the basis of relevance, and did not ask for any cautionary jury instruction regarding consideration of the Fall Evidence. The Estate maintains that the Defendants waived their objection to the Fall Evidence because they did not renew their relevancy objection following the nonsuit of the punitive damage claim. The Defendants contend that once they noted their exception to the denial of their motion in limine, they were not obligated to renew their objection to the Fall Evidence. The purpose of Rule 5:25 is to afford the trial court the ability to address an issue. If that opportunity is not presented to the trial court, there is no ruling by the trial court on the issue, and thus no basis for review or action by this Court on appeal. Furthermore, Rule 5:25 requires that parties state objections with reasonable certainty. See Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 413-14, 374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988) (holding defendant had waived objection pursuant to Rule 5:25 by offering a general objection that failed to put the trial court on fair notice). In this case, the Defendants, in their pretrial motions and during Friend's testimony, clearly objected to the admission of the Fall Evidence as irrelevant, immaterial and confusing or prejudicial to either the issue of notice or negligence. The trial court allowed the Fall Evidence for the purpose of notice; however, the punitive damage claim ultimately was not presented to the jury. Although the Defendants are correct that they did not have to renew their objection to the introduction of the Fall Evidence as it related to the notice claim, [2] under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Defendants' failure to reassert their objection that the Fall Evidence was irrelevant to the issue of negligence, or to ask the trial court to give the jury a cautionary instruction regarding the use of such evidence, precluded the trial court from considering whether further action or ruling should be made regarding that evidence after the Estate's punitive damages claim was nonsuited. In Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 601 S.E.2d 555 (2004), the defendant did not object when the trial court took defendant's pre-trial motion for change of venue under advisement. We held that because the defendant did not renew the motion or remind the court that the motion was still pending prior to the seating of the jury, the change of venue motion was waived and could not be raised on appeal. Id. at 309-310, 601 S.E.2d at 562-63. In this case, while the trial court did not take under advisement the Defendants' objection to the admission of the Fall Evidence as irrelevant and prejudicial to the negligence issue, the court also did not specifically address this objection in ruling that the evidence could be admitted for the limited purpose of notice in connection with the punitive damage claim. [3] When the punitive damage claim was nonsuited, the complexion of the litigation changed significantly. The Defendants recognized this change and sought to strike portions of the motion for judgment relating to the punitive damage claim and coauthored a joint statement read to the jury explaining that punitive or exemplary damages were no longer part of the litigation. They took no steps, however, to bring to the attention of the trial court the irrelevance of the Fall Evidence in light of the changed circumstances of the case, nor did they seek a cautionary instruction regarding the jury's use of that evidence. Thus, as in Riner, the Defendants did not afford the trial court in this case an opportunity to rule on their objections to the Fall Evidence in the sole context of the negligence issue. We reject the Defendants' argument that they renewed their relevance objection by moving to strike portions of the Motion for Judgment affected by the nonsuit. Nothing in this motion referred to either the statistical evidence of which they now complain or to its relevance to the negligence count. Thus, this motion also fails to meet the reasonable certainty requirement contained in Rule 5:25. For these reasons we conclude that the Defendants did not preserve their objections to the statistical evidence involving patient falls at other hospitals and at Riverside Hospital and we will not consider this assignment of error further. Rule 5:25.