Opinion ID: 2607402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to strike unresponsive testimony and to admonish the jury to disregard the testimony.

Text: Plaintiff next contends the trial court failed to strike certain unresponsive testimony of Dr. Buck and Dr. Hiszcznskyj and to admonish the jury to disregard the response. Plaintiff fails to brief the issue as it pertains to the testimony of Dr. Hiszcznskyj. Where the appellant fails to brief an issue, that issue is waived or abandoned. Bazine State Bank v. Pawnee Prod. Serv., Inc., 245 Kan. 490, 495, 781 P.2d 1077 (1989), cert. denied 109 L.Ed.2d 502 (1990). The objectionable testimony of Dr. Buck occurred during cross-examination by plaintiff's attorney and is shown in italics: Q. At any rate, there is no indication in this record he came to the hospital after being notified at 11:15 by the nurse?
Q. Well, excuse me, there is no indication in the record he came to the hospital between 11:15 and 11:45 or 11:38, whenever it was he got there, is there? A. Well, I don't know what this particular number is right here. I really don't. Q. Let me ask you another way  A. You know, you try to put this all together. Have written down 11:15, Dr. Ransdell notified. And then type and cross match written at 11:20. Some people theorize that hospitals should hire people with stop watches to keep records because when people are busy working they aren't looking at clocks, and trying to write these things down as best they can. Sometimes they write them on skirts. We are looking at times that don't necessarily agree exactly. And so what difference does it make, you know. I can't infer just when he arrived at the hospital except that it says Dr. Ransdell here. MR. SCHROER: Move to strike as not responsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Plaintiff claims the statements were prejudicial and were afforded great weight by the jury. She contends the statement clearly indicates it is impossible for hospitals to keep accurate times, hospitals should not have to keep track of the time, and it did not make any difference when defendant arrived. Plaintiff claims Dr. Buck's statement related to a critical issue and time frame, i.e., when Dr. Ransdell arrived at the hospital and when he should have been present. Plaintiff does not explain how the statements were prejudicial, or provide any support for her conclusion that the statements were afforded great weight by the jury. The statements do not indicate hospitals should not have to keep track of the time or that it did not make any difference when Dr. Ransdell arrived. Three questions later, plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Buck: Q. And it is a practice of all hospitals everywhere to try and accurately record as nearly as possible everything that is of significance; isn't that right? Dr. Buck responded: A. They attempt to do that, yes. Plaintiff has failed to show the statements prejudiced the jury. The trial court error, if any, is harmless error. Harmless error is error which does not prejudice the substantial rights of a party. It affords no basis for a reversal of a judgment and must be disregarded. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 Kan. 691, 701, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).