Opinion ID: 2117612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: 1. Did the court err in refusing to grant St. Mary's motion for a directed verdict upon the basis that Thomas did not establish a prima facie case? We hold the court did not. 2. Did the court err in entering a $125,000 judgment upon the jury verdict supposedly unsupported by sufficient evidence? We hold there was sufficient evidence. 3. Did the court err in refusing St. Mary's requested instruction on assumption of the risk? We hold the court properly refused this instruction. 4. Did the court err in submitting to the jury the instruction on comparative negligence? We hold the court properly determined that this instruction be given to the jury. 5. Did the court err in excluding St. Mary's offered testimony of an expert witness, a glass installer by trade, and in refusing St. Mary's requested instructions regarding the use of safety glazing materials in certain buildings. Our holding is that the exclusion of the testimony and the refusal to give the instructions was proper.