Ratliff v. Mikol, 2011 Ohio 2147

Ratliff and Baker appeal after a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Mikol, with Baker liable to rest against; Dr. Mikol challenged by a foreseeability instruction and Baker assigns error.
Baker alleges failure to perform an emergency C-section caused Baker's brain damage.
Trial evidence was conflicting on standard of care and the relevant foreseeability issue.
The trial court used a foreseeability instruction drawn from Ohio Jury Instructions (OJI), with Baker objecting to the word “likely.”
The court later held the foreseeability instruction correct; Baker waived objection to proximate cause instruction by not timely objecting; judgment affirmed against Baker and Ratliff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the foreseeability instruction legally correct?	Ratliff argues the word ‘likely’ heightens the duty.	Mikol asserts the instruction accurately states the law.	Foreseeability instruction correct; not reversible error.
Should the foreseeability instruction have been omitted?	Foreseeability is a duty issue, not for the jury.	Instruction was required by issues and proper.	Instruction properly given; not reversed.
Was Baker's proximate cause challenge preserved?	Objection to proximate cause should preserve error.	Baker invited the error; no timely objection.	Waived; cannot challenge proximate cause on appeal.

Kokitka v. Ford Motor Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1995) (jury instruction review; standard of ‘likely’ foreseeability language)
Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (inadequate jury instruction constitutes reversible error)
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (foreseeability defines duty; test for foreseeability)
Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (establishes elements for medical malpractice claim)
Renfro v. Black, 52 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 1990) (trial court discretion to give jury instructions)