During a jury trial, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 52.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow the jury to determine if past and future care costs were warranted, despite having called no evidence on these issues.
The plaintiff proposed that if the jury found such costs warranted, the quantum could be determined later by a judge.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining the necessary expert evidence before trial.
The court also held that bifurcating the issue would improperly remove the determination of the extent and quantum of future care costs from the jury.
