Aidan Vining

This ruling addresses requested changes to the jury charge in a medical negligence trial concerning the standard of care and the admissibility and weight of evidence regarding minority medical practice, usual practice, and the distinction between buttock numbness and saddle anaesthesia.

The court reviews the law on minority practice, the role of expert evidence, and the proper approach to weighing conflicting testimony, ultimately declining to make certain amendments requested by the defendant and clarifying the law for the jury.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel two defendants to answer seven questions refused during examinations for discovery in a personal injury action.

The plaintiff alleged negligence related to injury rates and safety protocols at a trampoline facility.

The defendants argued the questions were irrelevant, overly broad, disproportionate, or privileged.

The court largely sided with the defendants, compelling an answer to only one of the seven questions (regarding names and contact information of patrons present at the time of injury) and dismissing the rest, including those related to general injury data, DVR issues, and privileged communications about the waiver.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.