Court Opinion

ID: 9617997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:05:01.761243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:21.910538
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting in part.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the granting of Instruction X constituted reversible error.
Under established rules, instructions are to be read together and construed as a whole. Principles of law applicable to the evidence which may not be plain in one instruction may be clarified in another. Van Duyn v. Matthews, 181 Va. 256, 261, 24 S.E.2d 442, 444 (1943). And when instructions in a given case are inspected on appeal, a jury verdict confirmed by the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court when it can be seen that the instructions collectively could not have misled the jury. Adamson v. Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co., 111 Va. 556, 561, 69 S.E. 1055, 1058 (1911).
The plaintiffs theory of the case was that all the child’s injuries were due to the physician’s negligence and were caused by the elevated bilirubin. The defendant maintained that the doctor was not guilty of any negligence which proximately caused any of the injuries and presented evidence that the child’s problems were caused by, among other things, anoxia.
Presented with conflicting evidence as to various injuries and the causes of those injuries, the trial court instructed the jury as follows in Instruction J:
“Damages are not presumed nor may they be based upon speculation, but must be proven; and the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any item or element of damage claimed and that it is properly attributable to the negligence of the defendant; and unless such item or element of damage is thus proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then the plaintiff cannot recover for such item or element.” (Emphasis added).
*159In Instruction X, which the majority says was “subject to misunderstanding,” the trial court stated,
“[I]f you believe from the evidence that a particular injury complained of by the Plaintiff may have resulted from either of two causes, for one of which Dr. Morrison was responsible and for the other of which he was not, and if the jury are unable to determine which of the two causes occasioned the injury complained of, the[n] your verdict must be for the Defendant, Dr. Morrison, as to that particular injury.” (Emphasis added).
Instruction J was a general burden-of-proof instruction on the issue of damages. That instruction dealt with, first, the burden to prove any particular “item or element of damage claimed” and, second, the burden to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused such item or element. Then, concentrating on a single “item or element” to the exclusion of other items or elements, the court told the jurors there could be no recovery for such “item or element” unless the same had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Instruction X was another burden-of-proof instruction. In clear, plain, and unambiguous terms, the court again focused on proof of a single item or element of damage to the exclusion of others and on the issue of causation. The court directed the jurors’ attention for the second time to “a particular injury.” The court told the jurors that if they were unable to determine whether a particular injury resulted from either of two causes, for one of which the physician was not responsible, then the plaintiff could not recover for “that particular injury.”
In my view, these instructions, when read either separately or together—but especially when construed together—were not misleading and clearly apprised the jury of the pertinent law in conformity with the defendant’s theory of the case. The plaintiffs theory on damages was covered fully in yet another damage instruction, Instruction 8. That instruction dealt at length with the plaintiffs “injuries” in the plural. Thus, in three instructions the jurors were informed fully on multiple injuries collectively and on separate injuries individually.
*160Consequently, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
CARRICO, C.J., and RUSSELL, J., join in dissent.