Opinion ID: 1980089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: jury finding of negligence

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that the finding of negligence against O'Hearn, Harrington, and St. Luke's Hospitals compels a finding of proximate cause and liability for damages, and that the trial court failed to correct this omission by erroneously denying their motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs argue that [w]hile negligence and proximate cause are normally separate elements of proof, proof of negligent medical diagnosis or treatment is sufficient by itself to establish proximate cause where there is any substantial possibility that earlier diagnosis and treatment would have made a difference. [22] If plaintiffs considered this a correct statement of the law, they should have objected to the court's instruction on the duty of a physician which, incidentally, is identical in relevant part to the plaintiffs' proposed instruction on this issuethat required separate findings as to negligence and proximate cause: Before a physician can be held liable, the patient must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the physician negligently failed to administer or prescribe a proper mode of treatment, and in doing so must show that the result complained of was proximately caused by the violation of some rule of accepted medical practice. The separation of these two elements is also exhibited in the instruction on proximate cause (quoted at page 726), which in this regard is identical to plaintiffs' proposed instruction. Because there was no objection to either of the instructions, they become the law of the case. See, e.g., Matter of Estate of Honerud, supra . Plaintiffs' argument must also be rejected because plaintiffs did not make a motion for a directed verdict, which is a prerequisite to a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict. See Rule 50(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.