Opinion ID: 1960120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Made by John Flanagan in his Deposition

Text: The defendant argues that the trial justice erred in permitting a certain portion of the deposition of John Flanagan (John), the parent of the minor plaintiff, to be read to the jury. In substance, the trial justice permitted a portion of John's deposition to be read. It stated as follows: Question: `Have you ever asked any doctor for any opinion as to whether Dr. Wesselhoeft did anything wrong?'    Answer: `Yes, I did.' Question: `Who did you ask?' Answer: `Dr. Norman Cowen.' Question: `Anyone else?' Answer: `And I believe I asked Dr. Rosenwasser also.' Question: `What did they tell you?'    Answer: `Well, they did not criticize the doctor himself, but they did note that in that type of surgery it's very common practice that the nerves be isolated in a neck surgery. Actually, the standard.' Question: `Both Dr. Cowen and Dr. Rosenwasser told you that it was standard to isolate the nerves?'    Answer: `Yes.' The trial justice allowed this portion to be read on the theory that John's deposition had been read in part by counsel for defendant. The deposition originally was taken on March 14, 1995, on behalf of defendant. After defense counsel had read his portion of John's deposition, plaintiffs' counsel then read the portion quoted above to the jury. We are of the opinion that the trial justice erred in allowing the reading of this portion of the deposition by plaintiffs' counsel. The statements attributed to the doctors were clearly hearsay and were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in clear violation of Rules 801(c) and 802 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Rule 32 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence [may be read into evidence] as though the witness were then present and testifying. (Emphasis added.) It mustbe noted that this deposition was taken by defendant for purposes of discovery. Even though counsel for defendant asked these questions for purposes of discovery, that would not overcome their inadmissibility on hearsay grounds. Nevertheless, we conclude that this error is not reversible. There was ample evidence in the case to support the jury's finding of negligence by defendant in failing to isolate and avoid injury to this nerve. Some of it came from Dr. Wesselhoeft himself. Other evidence came from Dr. Brand. We are of the opinion that the evidence relating to the absence of informed consent, even without any additional evidence relating to negligence, would have been sufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiffs. As we have already indicated, that evidence was more than sufficient to overcome a motion for judgment as a matter of law.