Beckwith, et al. v. Shah
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01624-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01624-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Standard of care instructions Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): KING, C.J. Dissenting Author : CHANDLER, J. Dissent Joined By : BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2003 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE Case Number: CI99-0279 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CARL EDWARD BECKWITH AND STANLEY MARSHALL, ET AL., EXECUTORS OF THE
ESTATE OF HELEN BECKWITH, DECEASED |
DAVID L. MERIDETH
PHILIP MANSOUR |
||
| Appellee: | NIKHIL S. SHAH, M.D. | LONNIE D. BAILEY WILLIE L. BAILEY TOMMIE G. WILLIAMS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Standard of care instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carl Beckwith and Stanley Marshall, executors of the estate of Helen Beckwith, filed a complaint against Dr. Nikhil Shah, alleging that Dr. Shah was grossly negligent in his treatment of Helen and therefore liable for her death. Beckwith sought actual, compensatory and punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Shah. Beckwith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Beckwith argues that the jury was not properly instructed on the applicable standard of care in medical malpractice actions, because the two instructions given were abstract. If an instruction merely relates a principle of law without relating it to an issue in the case, it is an abstract instruction, and should not be given to the jury. However, granting an abstract instruction is not always reversible error unless the instruction confuses and misleads the jury. In reviewing all of the jury instructions, the two instructions which were given are not confusing or misleading so as to suggest that the jury misunderstood its role or the law. One of the instructions correctly states the proper standard of care and instructs the jury to return a verdict for Beckwith or Shah depending upon what the evidence showed. Beckwith also argues that two of his instructions should have been given instead of the other two which were given. Both instructions were confusing and peremptory in nature. Thus, the court did not err in denying the instructions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
