Court Opinion

ID: 9529299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:36.09545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:43.879665
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
with whom Springer, J., joins,
dissenting:
When Korin DuBois (Korin) was taken to the hospital, Richard *482Grant (Grant) paid the $300.00 fee for her emergency treatment, and his homeowner’s insurance subsequently paid an additional $7,684.47 toward her medical bills. The jury either should have been told the truth — that the medical expenses above $300.00 were paid on behalf of Grant — or should have been denied any information concerning who paid the medical bills and instructed not to speculate on the subject. The district court chose neither alternative, but rather permitted the jury to receive testimony that Grant himself had paid the bills. By doing this, the jury was informed of a fact that was untrue.
Grant was a reluctant defendant and the suit against him can be termed a friendly one. He was obviously very sorry that the accident happened and even admitted that he should have kept an eye on Korin when she was in the backyard near the horses. By incorrectly informing the jury that he paid all of the medical bills, he was made even more sympathetic in the eyes of the jury. Grant’s counsel took full advantage of the admission of the erroneous fact in closing argument:
Now, I have been doing this for over ten years and I’ve got to tell you that I would like to see a lot more people like Mr. Grant in these proceedings.
Mr. Grant got up on the stand and he told you, yes, he felt responsibility for Korin while she was out in his backyard. He genuinely felt and feels terrible about this accident. I don’t think there is any disputing that.
Mr. Grant paid all of Korin’s past medical bills— [obj ecti on— obj ection overruled] — to the tune of about $8,000. Mr. Grant takes this incident very seriously.
Although there is no way to ascertain the degree to which the jurors were influenced by the misinformation that Grant paid all medical bills, consideration of this factor probably added significantly to their feeling that Grant really did all that can be expected of a person on whose property an unfortunate accident occurs.
Once the evidentiary ruling was made permitting Grant to claim the insurance company’s payment of medical bills as his own, DuBois attempted to use the improper ruling to her advantage. Specifically, in defending Erika DuBois against Grant’s third-party claim, DuBois’ attorney stated that Grant’s payment of the medical bills was an acknowledgement of his responsibility.1 I see nothing wrong with a party adjusting his or her case in *483accordance with an adverse evidentiary ruling made by the court. Furthermore, Erika’s argument was factually correct because Grant had paid $300.00 toward the medical bills.
Because the jury should have been told the truth about the payment of Korin’s medical bills or told nothing at all, and because the incorrect information probably contributed to the defense verdict rendered in favor of Grant, I would reverse this case and remand it for a new trial.

 This argument would have been susceptible to an objection based on NRS 48.115, that the offer to pay or payment of medical bills is not admissible to prove liability for an injury, but it appears all parties waived the applicability of this statute.