Opinion ID: 1509433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issues Presented by Respondent

Text: Respondent, pursuant to Rule 27(a), Tenn.R.App.P., designated issues. Most of these fairly inhere in the foregoing discussion. We hold that all special requests tendered were either covered in the main charge, or have no evidentiary basis or the failure of their inclusion had no effect on the jury verdict. Respondent complains of the action of the Trial Judge in manually delivering the written charge to the jury over the objection of counsel and asserts that this was error as a matter of law. We are cited to Section 20-1315, T.C.A. This Code section merely requires that the charge in civil cases be reduced to writing, at the request of either party, before delivery to the jury. We are also cited to Smith v. Steele, 313 S.W.2d 495 (Tenn. App. 1956). This case merely holds that the trial judge is not required to physically deliver the written charge to the jury. We know of no authority precluding the practice of physically delivering to the jury the trial judge's charge, after oral delivery. This is a matter lying wholly within the discretion of the trial judge. Respondent charges the trial court with error in disclosing the ad damnum to the jury. Section 23-3416, T.C.A., provides that in medical malpractice actions the complaint may state a demand for a specific sum but that this shall not be disclosed to the jury. Assuming, but not deciding, the validity of this portion of the law, the error, if any, was harmless beyond doubt. Plaintiff sued for $25,000.00; he was awarded $1,224.48. This complaint is frivolous. The issues designated by respondent are without merit. Reversed. BROCK, C.J., and FONES, J., concur. HARBISON and COOPER, JJ., dissent.