Court Opinion

ID: 9740266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:31:17.808642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.187753
License: Public Domain

Bronson, P.J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority that the trial court’s sua sponte statement of the issues was erroneous in that it predi*324cated liability on a finding that decedent was suffering from peritonitis at the time of defendant’s examination. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that such a framing of the issues was harmless error.
I cannot reach the conclusion that, taken together, the three issues as formulated by the trial court correctly stated the case. Each of the three issues directly or indirectly referred to peritonitis. Taken together, the impression still remains that liability is predicated on the existence of, and failure to diagnose, peritonitis. Formulating the issues in this manner unfairly limited the scope of plaintiff’s case, and, coming as it did from the bench, the trial court’s statements undoubtedly had a great impact on the jury and should not be considered harmless.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.