Court Opinion

ID: 9656234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:44:11.109611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:41.693864
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Although I concur in parts 2 and 3 of the majority decision, I must respectfully dissent from part 1.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that it was error to submit the “bad faith” issue to the jury. As the majority clearly explains, no legitimate reason existed justifying the submission. I do part company with the majority when it finds no prejudice in the submission. My reading of the record leads me to concur with the court of appeals in its holding “that the question concerning bad faith and the correlative instruction prejudiced Medtronic by focusing the jury’s attention on an irrelevant and perhaps highly charged emotional issue. Its effect is an improper impression on the jury. The jury, in a sense, was allowed to decide only if Medtronic committed active fraud and if Medtronic acted in bad faith. A new trial is required.” Anderson v. Medtronic, 365 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn.App.1985).