distinguishing between erroneous instructions and omitted instructions for the purpose of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 51.02
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing between erroneous instructions and omitted instructions for the purpose of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 51.02
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
November 17, 2006 Session
GALADRIEL BASHAM v. MARK K. GREAVES
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County
No. 00C-1558 Marietta M. Shipley, Judge
No. M2006-00281-COA-R3-CV - Filed on December 11, 2006
WILLIAM C. KOCH , JR., P.J., M.S., concurring.
This appeal is yet another effort to provide the courts with a permissible vehicle for
circumventing the legislatively mandated “locality rule” uniquely applicable to medical malpractice
cases. Galadriel Basham seeks to hold the trial court in error for using an instruction based on the
Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions. She insists that the trial court should have given a broader
instruction equating the nationwide “community” of board-certified emergency room physicians with
the geographical concept of “community” plainly embodied in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a)(1)
(Supp. 2006).
Ms. Basham cannot make this argument now because she failed to request the trial court to
give a broader instruction. Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tenn. 1978)
(distinguishing between erroneous instructions and omitted instructions for the purpose of Tenn. R.
Civ. P. 51.02); Jones v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Parties who failed to take actions reasonably available to them to prevent or nullify the harmful
effect of an error are not entitled to relief on appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a).
_______________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S.