potential witness who was a physician was not equally accessible when his testimony likely would favor the defendant physicians
How later courts described this case
- potential witness who was a physician was not equally accessible when his testimony likely would favor the defendant physicians
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I believe the Court committed reversible error in giving plaintiff's requested charge No. 8, which reads as follows:
"The court further charges the jury that the same general neighborhood refers to a national medical neighborhood or national medical community, of reasonably competent physicians in the same *Page 263 line of practice acting in the same or similar circumstances." (Emphasis added.)
I cannot apply the harmless error rule because the instruction states an incorrect principle of law. The proper standard of care, in my opinion, is that I set forth, in a special concurring opinion, in Zills v. Brown , 382 So.2d 528 , 533 (Ala. 1980). Furthermore, the application of the harmless error rule in this case is made more difficult because of the trial court's action in permitting plaintiff's counsel to argue defendants' daily income. After examining the whole case, I believe the appellants have shown that they did not receive a fair trial, for the reasons I have stated; therefore, I would reverse.