Opinion ID: 2103552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Person Standard

Text: Defendants also argue that the trial and appellate courts erred in failing to require that a reasonable person would have called Dr. Hibbard to testify. Defendants argue that the courts did not require any showing that Dr. Hibbard had knowledge relevant to the disputed issue. However, this is not true, as Dr. Hibbard spent at least part of the day treating Jennifer, and the chart reflects a notation written under Hibbard's name that is adverse to defendant's interest. Even if Dr. Hibbard was not the note's author, she would have had that relevant information and perhaps some explanation as to its existence. Much of defendants' argument is based on their assertion that the only period relevant in the lawsuit was from the time plaintiff arrived at the hospital until 12:28 p.m., the time when the fetal heart rate improved and the emergency Caesarean section was canceled. However, while this was plaintiffs' original theory, plaintiffs' complaint and closing arguments, as well as the jury instructions, reveal that the entire time prior to the decedent's birth was relevant. Plaintiffs' complaint was broad enough to encompass the evidence at trial concerning the entire day's events. Plaintiffs' fourth-amended complaint alleged that defendants: [f]ailed to take adequate medical and surgical steps to control the condition of the baby which developed prior to and were occurring at the time of birth, prior to its death. Such basis for liability was also reflected in the jury instructions, which phrased liability in terms of whether defendants: [f]ailed to properly follow the progress of the decedent baby prior to delivery and failed to undertake medical steps, including the performance of a caesarean section delivery, necessary to prevent the death of decedent. Finally, plaintiffs' closing argument to the jury conformed to the evidence at trial, as well as plaintiffs' complaint and jury instruction. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the jury should remember as very important the dispute between Doctors Cibils and Hibbard about whether any late decelerations occurred. Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel argued that plaintiffs' burden of proof was to show that a Caesarean section or some procedure to save the baby's life should have been performed before the baby died. We conclude that the trial court's actions were not an abuse of discretion.