Opinion ID: 1726198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: whether prejudicial error was committed by giving plaintiffs' instruction p-9 over the objection of the downtown grill?

Text: ¶ 38. Appellant next argues that instruction P-9 was given to the jury over defendant's objection. P-9 You are instructed that just compensation is a decision to be made by the jury. Your discretion as to the measure of damages is wide, but not unlimited, and you may not act arbitrarily. Exercise your discretion as the amount of damages reasonably, intelligently and in harmony with the evidence of the case and the Court's instructions. The damages for personal injury cannot be assessed by any fixed rule, but you are the sole judges as to the measure of damages in this case. Should your verdict be for the Plaintiffs in this case, you may consider the following factors to determine the amount of damages to award as may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The type of injuries to the Plaintiffs, if any, and their duration; 2. Past, present and future emotional pain and suffering and resulting mental anguish, if any, 3. Reasonable and necessary expenses which were proximately caused by Defendants' wrongdoing. If you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that Plaintiffs have sustained actual damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' false accusation that Paul Connell committed forgery then the Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict in an amount which will reasonably compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss sustained. Such damages are called compensatory or actual damages and are awarded for the purpose of making the Plaintiffs whole again insofar as a money verdict can accomplish that purpose. (emphasis added). ¶ 39. The Downtown Grill argues that they objected to this instruction on two separate grounds. First, it instructs the jury that they may compensate Michael and Tonia Connell for damages they suffered, even emotional damages, when they have no claims in their individual capacities. Secondly, it refers to `Defendant's false accusations' in such a manner as to instruct the jury that Chris Gwin in fact accused Paul Connell of forging the check, when this was a hotly contested issue of fact. This Court agrees that defendant's objection should have been sustained. ¶ 40. The plaintiffs' own attorney acknowledged that ... we may have to refine a damage instruction to explain to the jury exactly which damage the parents are seeking versus the son. There was never an instruction given to clarify the damages the parents were entitled to recover. It appears that the jury's award contains some amount intended for the pain and suffering of the parents. The parents were not entitled to any recovery. ¶ 41. By giving instruction P-9 without any clarification, the trial court committed reversible error.