Opinion ID: 415692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court Remarks and Jury Instructions

Text: 33 Finally, Rojas complains of statements from the bench during presentation of his case and in the jury instructions that he believes prejudiced his case. The statements made while witnesses were on the stand consist of disparaging remarks on the quality of the case. The district judge interrupted questioning a few times with remarks such as I don't see any reason for pursuing that, and You are flat losing me. I don't know what in the world this has to do with this fellow falling off that horse. I can't see any materiality of that. Although such statements may not be the most totally neutral way to express concern over irrelevance or delay as defined in Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court obviously was trying to expedite the efficient presentation of issues at trial rather than to obliterate the plaintiff's credibility. 34 Neither were the jury instructions otherwise inherently prejudicial. Rojas objects, first, to an instruction on contributory negligence since he claims the defense presented no evidence whatsoever on contributory negligence. However, we find an adequate claim of contributory negligence in the trial record, and the district court properly instructed the jury to consider that barrier to recovery. 35 Second, Rojas claims substantial error in the jury instruction on payment of medical expenses. The court instructed: 36 The fact that the defendants have paid medical expenses for employees in the past and may have paid a portion of the Plaintiff's medical expenses is no evidence that the Defendants were negligent or liable to the Plaintiff for such expenses, and you are instructed not to regard it as such. 37 (Emphasis added.) 38 Rojas admits this to be an adequate instruction regarding the tort claims, but claims that use of the term liable eradicates any possibility of liability on the employment contract claims he also made against the employers. He claims the evidence that his employers paid his medical bills should prove contractual obligations stemming from the employment relationship. However, we do not find that the jury instructions prejudiced Rojas' contract claims, and we will not reverse for jury instructions that might have been marginally preferable toward one of the parties, especially where no timely objection to the instruction was made in the court below. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51.