Opinion ID: 1669438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the trial court err in instructing the jury, sua sponte, with a jury instruction concerning the aggravation of plaintiff's pre-existing mental condition?

Text: ¶ 52. The Circuit Court enjoys considerable discretion regarding the form and substance of jury instructions. Splain v. Hines, 609 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss.1992). The trial judge may initiate and give appropriate written instructions in addition to the approved instructions submitted by the litigants if, in his discretion, he deems the ends of justice so require. Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 78 (Miss.1975). ¶ 53. The instruction given by the court concerning preexisting mental conditions was as follows: The Court instructs the jury that a Defendant who injures a plaintiff suffering from a pre-existing mental condition is liable for the entire damage for mental distress when no apportionment can be made between the pre-existing mental condition and the damage caused by the defendantthus the defendant must take the plaintiff as he finds him. In other words, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff, David Clein, is entitled to any damages for mental distress, you should compensate him for any aggravation of any existing mental or other defect (or activation of any such latent condition), resulting from such injury. If you find that there was such an aggravation, you should determine, if you can, what portion, if any, of the plaintiff's mental or other condition resulted from the aggravation and then make allowance in your verdict only for that portion of the aggravation. However, if you cannot make that determination, or apportion, or if it cannot be said that the condition would have existed apart from the injury, you should consider and make allowance in your verdict for the entire condition. Defendants argue that this instruction was not warranted based upon the evidence adduced at trial; however, this Court disagrees. The jury heard that Clein was committed to a psychiatric hospital, experienced hallucinations and saw psychiatrists for anxiety and depression, prior to being treated by Dr. Blake. ¶ 54. One who injures another suffering from a pre-existing condition is liable for the entire damage when no apportionment can be made between the pre-existing condition and the damage caused by the defendantthus the defendant must take his victim as he finds her. Brake v. Speed, 605 So.2d 28, 33 (Miss.1992). This Court finds that this instruction was proper to inform the jury of how to allocate damages for Clein's claimed mental distress, but at the same time, highlights the trial court's errors in precluding the defendant from fully developing the source and/or cause, origin, and extent of plaintiff's mental and emotional history and excluding witnesses.