Opinion ID: 1294625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hindsight Instruction.

Text: The trial court gave the following instruction over the plaintiffs' objection: A physician's conduct must be viewed in light of the circumstances existing at the time of diagnosis and treatment and not retrospectively. If a physician exercised a reasonable degree of care and skill under the circumstances as they existed, though not as seen in perfect hindsight, then the physician is not negligent. The plaintiffs claimed at trial that this instruction, particularly the reference to hindsight, was not proper, was projectional, and was not a uniform instruction in Iowa. This court has held that similar objections made to a comparable instruction given in a legal malpractice case were not sufficient to preserve error. See Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Iowa 1994). In Watters, the court instructed the jury that the lawyer's professional conduct was to be judged in the light of all the surrounding circumstances existing prior to and during [the lawyer's] representation, and not according to any hindsight. Id. The plaintiff's attorney objected to this instruction and a related instruction on the basis they were not the law of Iowa and [were] not part of the uniform jury instructions. Id. On appeal, we held these objections were not sufficiently definite to preserve error. The same conclusion is warranted here. See also Winckel v. Von Maur, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 453, 458 (Iowa 2002) (holding objections that instruction was not a part of any standard instructions and was not appropriate were inadequate), abrogated on other grounds by Barreca v. Nickolas, 683 N.W.2d 111, 121 (Iowa 2004); Moser v. Stallings, 387 N.W.2d 599, 604 (Iowa 1986) (stating party's trial objection that instruction was erroneous, without stating the reason why it was erroneous, was not sufficiently specific to [preserve error]); Rudolph v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 293 N.W.2d 550, 561 (Iowa 1980) (holding objection that instruction is a misstatement of the law did not preserve error); Yeager v. Durflinger, 280 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 1979) (holding objection that instruction `is not a proper statement of Iowa law' ... preserves nothing). Finding no reversible error in the submission of this case or the trial court's rulings, we affirm. AFFIRMED.