Opinion ID: 2427096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Give AMI Civ.3d 2214

Text: The next issue is whether the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to give AMI Civ.3d 2214 regarding the plaintiff's duty to use ordinary care to mitigate damages. We have consistently held that a party is entitled to a jury instruction when it is a correct statement of the law, and there is some basis in the evidence to support the giving of the instruction. Yocum v. State, 325 Ark. 180, 925 S.W.2d 385 (1996); Parker v. Holder, 315 Ark. 307, 867 S.W.2d 436 (1993). Moreover, we will not reverse a trial court's refusal to give a proffered instruction unless there was an abuse of discretion. Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. v. Rankins, 312 Ark. 240, 848 S.W.2d 924 (1993); Stein v. Lukas, 308 Ark. 74, 823 S.W.2d 832 (1992); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kelton, 305 Ark. 173, 806 S.W.2d 373 (1991). The relevant inquiry presented by this case is whether there was some evidence that Priddy failed to use ordinary care to follow the instructions of her physician as specified in AMI Civ.3d 2214. During the trial, Dr. Thomas testified as follows: ATTORNEY: Is it still up in the air whether she is to go through with the operation? DR. THOMAS: It could be done at anytime. ATTORNEY: I mean, as far as her decision, did you invite her to think about it for a period of time? DR. THOMAS: I certainly did.     ATTORNEY: Did you put any deadline on her thinking about what to do? DR. THOMAS: No, sir, because the procedure would not change. It would be the same procedure a year from now. It's a matter of deciding whether the pain is getting better over that period of time, and whether it's become more tolerable. And if that is so, then I wouldn't consider the surgery. If the pain gets worse, or if it remains at the same level and it's felt to be intolerable, then that's a surgical option that can be done. ATTORNEY: So it's really up to her whether she wants to risk DR. THOMAS: That's correct. ATTORNEY: the surgery, or to just try to put up with the pain? DR. THOMAS: That's correct.     ATTORNEY: Can you say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the surgery you have suggested is necessary? DR. THOMAS: I don't consider it necessary unless the patient feels that her pain is not controlled. If she feels it's intolerable, then I think it's an option. I don't consider it necessary. Based on these facts, we agree with the trial court that there was no evidence that Priddy was ever given instructions by Dr. Thomas as required by AMI Civ.3d 2214. Instead, it appears that Dr. Thomas merely gave Priddy the option to have the surgery when and if the pain became so severe that the benefits of the surgery outweighed the possible negative side effects. Additionally, Dr. Thomas refused to characterize the surgery as necessary. Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that there was not enough evidence in this case to support the giving of AMI Civ.3d 2214. Affirmed.