Lisowski v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., N15C-04-228 ALR

Background

Plaintiffs sued Bayhealth for medical negligence arising from the post‑surgical death of Alexis Rodriguez; after an eight‑day trial the jury found negligence but concluded it did not proximately cause the death.
Parties submitted joint proposed jury instructions; Bayhealth sought to add a sentence to the Proximate Cause instruction stating: “An action is not the proximate cause of an event or condition if that event or condition would have resulted without the negligence.”
Plaintiffs objected pre‑trial to that additional sentence; the court overruled the objection at the Pre‑trial Conference and included the sentence in the jury charge, relying in part on Bayhealth’s representation that the language appeared in the Pattern Jury Instructions.
During deliberations the jury sent a note asking for clarification of the Proximate Cause instruction; the court declined to expand the instruction and re‑read it as given. The jury then returned the inconsistent verdict (negligence found; no proximate cause).
Plaintiffs moved for a new trial alleging the added sentence was misleading (use of “event or condition” instead of “injury” or “harm”) and confused the jury; Bayhealth argued waiver under Rule 51 and that the instruction was proper and non‑misleading.
The court found Plaintiffs had preserved their objection, concluded the added sentence undermined the jury’s ability to intelligently decide proximate cause in the context of conflicting causation evidence and the jury’s note, and granted a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bayhealth’s added sentence to the Proximate Cause instruction was misleading and required a new trial	The phrase “event or condition” (vs. “injury”/“harm”) was confusing and misled the jury about proximate cause, undermining the verdict	The objection was waived for failure to satisfy Rule 51 procedural timing; the sentence was not confusing in context	Court: Instruction was misleading in context and undermined jury’s ability to render intelligent verdict; new trial granted
Whether Plaintiffs waived their objection under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 51	Plaintiffs preserved the objection by noting it in joint proposed instructions and renewing it at Pre‑trial Conference	Bayhealth said Plaintiffs failed to state confusion at trial and did not renew immediately before deliberations, so objection was waived	Court: Objection preserved by pretrial submissions and conference; not waived
Whether inclusion of the language was supported by Pattern Jury Instructions or decisional law	Plaintiffs argued language was not proper or supported by Delaware precedent	Bayhealth represented the language appeared in Pattern Jury Instructions and argued evidence made it appropriate	Court: Language was not in Pattern Jury Instructions and Bayhealth cited no controlling decisional authority; evidence did not make it appropriate
Whether jury’s note and verdict evidence actual confusion warranting a new trial	Plaintiffs argued the jury note requesting clarification showed actual confusion about proximate cause	Bayhealth cited Reinco to argue speculative confusion insufficient absent more	Court: Jury note plus inconsistent verdict and conflicting causation evidence demonstrated actual confusion; Reinco distinguished; new trial warranted

Key Cases Cited

Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d 1094 (Del. 1991) (standard for evaluating jury‑instruction error and whether it undermined jury’s ability to decide)
Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103 (Del. 2006) (noting new trial is an abuse of discretion if based on speculative jury confusion; actual jury notes or inconsistent verdicts may justify new trial)
Lowther v. State, 104 A.3d 840 (Del. 2014) (jury instructions must be reasonably informative and not misleading)
Russell v. K‑Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1 (Del. 2000) (Delaware’s strong public policy favoring resolution on the merits)