Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneynegligencetrialmotionburden of proofexpert witnessobjection
plaintiffattorneynegligencetrialmotionburden of proofexpert witnessobjection

Related Cases

Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556
View Case »
Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 50 A.L.R.4th 641, 53 USLW 2309
View Case »
Ogden v. Groves, 241 So.2d 756
View Case »
Frey v. Department of Health and Human Services, 106 F.R.D. 32, 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1381
View Case »
In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Flynn v. Edmonds, 236 Ill.App.3d 770, 602 N.E.2d 880, 176 Ill.Dec. 934

Facts

On December 17, 1985, John Flynn, Jr. dislocated his elbow after falling from a stool. He was treated by Dr. Edmonds at St. Mary's Hospital, who discharged him after finding no issues. However, Flynn's condition worsened, leading to a series of examinations and ultimately a delay in surgery due to complications from compartment syndrome. The plaintiffs claimed that the delay in treatment caused significant deterioration of Flynn's condition, necessitating further surgical procedures.

On December 17, 1985, John Flynn, Jr. (Flynn), fell off a stool and dislocated his elbow. He was treated in the emergency room at St. Mary's Hospital by Dr. Edmonds, who then issued instructions for care and discharged Flynn. Dr. Edmonds examined the arm again on the following afternoon and, finding no problem, sent him home. The pain and swelling of a dislocated elbow normally begins to subside within 24 to 48 hours. But, on December 19, Flynn's condition worsened.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiffs' motions for mistrial and challenges for cause against certain jurors, and did the surgeon's attorney have a duty to disclose the perjury of the plaintiffs' expert witness?

Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiffs' motions for mistrial and challenges for cause against certain jurors, and did the surgeon's attorney have a duty to disclose the perjury of the plaintiffs' expert witness?

Rule

A mistrial is warranted only in cases of significant juror bias or misconduct, and attorneys are not required to disclose potential perjury unless they have actual knowledge of it.

A mistrial is warranted only in cases of significant juror bias or misconduct, and attorneys are not required to disclose potential perjury unless they have actual knowledge of it.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the jurors in question were biased or objectionable, and the trial court's discretion in these matters was upheld. Additionally, the court ruled that the defense counsel's actions regarding the expert witness did not constitute a violation of ethical rules, as there was no obligation to disclose potential perjury without actual knowledge.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the jurors in question were biased or objectionable, and the trial court's discretion in these matters was upheld. Additionally, the court ruled that the defense counsel's actions regarding the expert witness did not constitute a violation of ethical rules, as there was no obligation to disclose potential perjury without actual knowledge.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the surgeon, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for a mistrial or juror bias, and that the defense counsel acted appropriately regarding the expert witness.

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the surgeon, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for a mistrial or juror bias, and that the defense counsel acted appropriately regarding the expert witness.

Who won?

The surgeon prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof regarding negligence and juror bias.

The surgeon prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof regarding negligence and juror bias.

You must be