Court found that the standard instruction was correct as it "clearly informed the jury that the medical care required is that of reasonably careful physicians or hospital emergency room operators, not that of interns or residents."
How later courts described this case
- Court found that the standard instruction was correct as it "clearly informed the jury that the medical care required is that of reasonably careful physicians or hospital emergency room operators, not that of interns or residents."
- To overcome the presumption of impartiality, the appellant must show bias, prejudice, or that the trial judge prodded the witness to elicit partisan testimony.
- "It is well established that a trial court has broad discretion in instructing the jury."
- “Where a party has not made an ‘appearance’ in an action he is not entitled to notice of the default proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wilson, J.,
dissenting. I do not agree that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to hold a hearing on the motion to file an answer. An exercise of discretion by a trial court may be erroneous but still valid.
The exercise of discretion should be considered in the light of the strong public policy favoring trials on the merits instead of defaults. I would affirm.