*1 56,551 No. Hitchcock, M.D., K. v. C. Appellee, Walters,
Lillian Thomas Appellant.
(697 847) P.2d Opinion filed April 1985. McCamish, Cubbison, City, M. argued Warren of Williamson & of Kansas appellant. cause and was on brief for Vusich, City, Kancel, M. City, argued Gloria of Kansas and Felix G. of Kansas cause, appellee. on were the brief for opinion court was delivered This is a medical malpractice action wherein McFarland, J.: $2,000,000 K. Lillian a damage Walters received award against Hitchcock, C. defendant Thomas M.D. The defendant physician appeals jury’s pretrial from the verdict and certain post-trial rulings the district court. may December, 1979,
The facts be summarized as follows. In lump on the neck of Lillian family Walters discovered her physician. was, time, Mrs. approximately years Walters at the married, age, with four minor children. She employed was not family physician outside the home. The conducted number of tests with a surgeon. and advised her to consult Mrs. Walters was Hitchcock, surgeon, seen defendant January 1980. As a her, physical examination Dr. testing and his prior
result of removal of diseased areas of surgical recommended Hitchcock *2 a possibly malign- indications of There were thyroid gland. January 1980. Surgery was scheduled ant condition. Mrs. relatively operation was a low risk was advised Walters three-day hospital stay and small anticipated with an procedure scar. residual appeared what at the time to proceeded in operation to the Specimens pathology were sent labora- manner.
routine patient was was sutured tory malignancy no detected. and recovery day One later Mrs. Walters’ room. sent to and size, Her head ballooned in she rapidly deteriorated. condition respiratory She was and suffered extreme distress. blind became breathing care unit where a tube was the intensive taken to thereafter, Shortly Hitchcock was Dr. advised inserted. pathology department that a one inch one and one- hospital thyroid piece esophagus was to the tissue connected half inch laboratory during surgery. Mrs. sent to the Walters’ specimen badly surgery. infected. She taken to Dr. wound was now was reopened significant wound and observed a Hitchcock hole esophagus. He portion in left front of her concluded that possible esophagus thereby and repair was not sewed shut — permanently. closing feeding possible only through point At was a tube inserted regained She directly into Mrs. Walters’ stomach. her vision. hospitalizations surgical procedures and followed. Numerous Ultimately, interposition surgery performed colon making bypass esophagus portion a sort of involved from Mrs. Mrs. Walters’ colon. facts relative to Walters’ Additional quality of her life will be set in condition and the forth relative the amount of damages discussion of the issue awarded herein. brought against this action Dr.
Mrs. Walters Hitchcock based upon negligence cutting esophagus into the failing $4,000,000 repair sought prompt damages. make thereof. She negligence injury Dr. denied and blamed the Hitchcock physiology of Mrs. esophagus the abnormal Walters. The $2,000,000 damages Dr. awarded Mrs. Walters Hitchcock appeals therefrom. appeal alleged issue on concerns
The first closing argument. closing In his ar- plaintiffs during counsel plaintiffs gument counsel stated: esophagus $4 I sell
“Who would sell their million? would not mine.” “golden prohibited Defendant contends this constitutes a argument. arguments rule” This term relates to of counsel that jurors position place plaintiff. should themselves in the arguments usually improper may Such are constitute re- § 2d., pp. versible error. See Am. Trial 357-58. Jur. argues asking place
Plaintiff remarks were not shoes, merely hypothetical themselves in s and were nature. actually span categories.
The remarks two The comment com- believe, mencing is, . .” “Who would sell . . we a fair argument damages relative to claimed and not a “golden rule” argument. The comment that counsel would not sell his eso- *3 phagus for that sum is it testimonial in nature as is a statement of personal opinion. counsel’s improper argument. This is an Does this improper comment constitute reversible error? We believe not. To constitute error there must a likelihood reversible improper changed the remarks the result of the trial. See State v. Dill, 2d 589 P.2d We have examined that, circumstances, the totality record and conclude in the the the improper only comment constituted harmless error.
Additionally, we timely note that counsel made a objection to the objection remarks and the was sustained. did Counsel not request given. Further, and was admonition none the had been instructed: you only testimony “The evidence should the consider consists of the witnesses the exhibits which the has Court received. “Opening by attorneys acquaint you statements are made the with the facts
they expect hear, prove. Closing arguments, you which are about to are made attorneys case, the to discuss the facts and circumstances in this and should be confined the evidence and to reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. opening evidence, closing arguments Neither statements nor are state- argument attorneys ment or made the which is based not on the evidence disregarded”. (Emphasis supplied.) should be We conclude this is issue without merit.
The second issue whether the trial excluding court erred in opinion testimony of Dr. Arlo S. Hermreck relative to causa- tion Mrs. Walters’ surgical complications. Dr. Hermreck was Dr. Mrs. Walters defendant. into the treatment
called instructors medical one of defendant’s had been Hermreck Dr. had remained close. Hitch- physicians two school it Dr. for evaluation and Walters to Hermreck Mrs. cock referred interposition performed the colon sur- who was Dr. Hermreck was, trial, physician charge of her time of at gery and who fully he as to the treatment had testified care. Dr. Hermreck condition, prog- and future present her patient, provided expert call Dr. Hermreck as an desired to Dr. Hitchcock nosis. physiological abnormality support his defense witness problem cause and that Dr. Hitch- was the Mrs. Walters in his The trial negligent treatment of her. cock had not been testimony opinion improper. would be court held such considerations which included was a number of ruling based which, physicians relationship two between close believed, Dr. in a place would Hermreck difficult trial court it believed The trial court also stated such position. ethical (K.S.A. privilege testimony physician-patient would violate 60-427). physician-patient privilege trial reliance on court’s 60-427(d) clearly privilege provides the
misplaced. K.S.A. does patient apply in an action condition of is an not Further, patient. in the or factor claim element for the rather difficult situation Dr. court’s concern Hermreck placed opinion his testifying would be relative to on causation adherence to the standard of care is and Dr. Hitchcock’s excluding testimony. valid reason for stated, position of Dr. previously As Hitchcock that esophagus Mrs. Walters’ was abnormal and that its defective *4 being thyroid gland during condition was the cause of it cut the Dr. surgery. Humphrey, Dr. Hitchcock called Loren who J. (a esophagus an outpouching testified Mrs. Walters’ had diverti- culum) abnormality and that was this was cut in that the essence, surgery. Humphrey In Dr. testified that Mrs. Walters extremely abnormality had which injury an rare caused not fault his patient. Dr. Hitchcock was at in care of the It that, despite should also noted his be restriction on testi- mony, testify Mrs. esophagus was, Dr. Hermreck did Walters’ prior his the initial opinion, surgery. defective Dr. Hitchcock he Mrs. must testified believed Walters have had diverticulum esophagus amputated her during surgery. had been believed, did not reconstructing He see such structure but events, present. that one must have been expert testimony Admission within of lies the sound discretion the trial its will rulings of court and thereon not be disturbed on appeal Limiting the absence of abuse of discretion. expert
number
witnesses is
a matter within
also
the discretion
Co.,
Light
court. Powers v.
Power &
the trial
Kansas
Kan.
(1983).
671 P.2d
When evidence is
excluded
trial
court,
party seeking
the judgment
reversal of
has
burden
Adoption
In re
demonstrating prejudice by
such exclusion.
Irons,
For his third defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to recall to establish misconduct.
Attached to defendant’s a new motion for trial was affidavit attorney had, trial, of defendant’s that he after talked to three of jurors been jury during had advised that the its deliber- any recovery ation had discussed herein be would reduced attorney truth, course, fees and income taxes. recovery However, would be reduced income taxes. falsity
truth or of statements made is not the discussions issue before us. Rather we must decide whether the trial court in refusing erred to recall for examination. allegations juror relative to misconduct constituted one of grounds on which a new was sought. trial K.S.A. 60-259
governs Jury new motions trial. misconduct is one of the statutory grounds may Jury on which a trial granted. new grounds is not one of the for new that K.S.A. 60-259(g) requires be submitted on affidavits otherwise unless This, however, issue ordered. not determinative before Supreme (232 clvi) us. Rule 181 Kan. Court states: *5 hearings shall OF not be called for “POST-TRIAL CALLING JURORS. Jurors hearing post-trial after without an order of the court motion and held on motions called, jurors jurors should be If are determine whether all or called.
to subpoena possible.” means than should be if informal other utilized rule, jurors may hearings recalled post-trial be for Under this hearing the court after on need therefor. only order of Jury public duty not a routine matter. service is a Such recall is jurors after their recall of service has ended to citizens and our occurring during in the room delibera- testify as to events only just step is a to be undertaken cause. The tions serious fishing trip upon losing never be utilized as a procedure should might jurors surface if the hope counsel’s misconduct questioned upon party under could be oath. burden necessity seeking recalling jurors show an order to for the order.
Is the counsel his or her with affidavit of as to conversations support jurors sufficient to claim of error on the refusing jury? recall Absent court members of some herein, extraordinary present circumstances we believe question negative. must answered There is no reason be why given jurors affidavits of the not have themselves could herein rather their been secured than counsel’s recall of com- casting any veracity of aspersions ments. Without herein, we particular affidavit of counsel believe that such af- are, support generally, fidavits insufficient a claim of error jury. predicated upon a trial court’s refusal to recall a Verbal by jurors following comments to counsel trial are often made stress, may easily subject under some misunderstood affidavit(s) interpretation. more than one An to show the offered alleged need to recall a for examination among jurors during deliberations should from come one present alleged namely during one or more of misconduct — jurors. way, personal another the affiant have Put should hearsay. knowledge the facts rather than the We recitation refusing therefore conclude the trial did not err in- court recall jury. with that This result is reached Court of accord Probst, Cornejo 2d P.2d Appeals 6 Kan. (1981). Cornejo rev. denied involved counsel’s hearing his verbal statements at the motion for new trial with relative to his conversations contrast coun- *6 juror relative sel’s affidavit to conversations as is before us. However, Cornejo equally much of the rationale of is applicable issue to the herein. issue, challenges his final
For defendant the size of ver- his defendant dict. In brief states: advancing argument, definitely long “In is defendant aware of the line subject guidelines cases of Kansas and the that have evolved in those The defendant realizes
cases. trial will court not be reversed in order denying verdict, light new evidence, trial unless the amount of the of the (Citations appellate omitted.) the conscience of the shocks court.” Defendant, support argument of his the verdict was excessive, directs our following: attention to the by $59,000. approximately “1. Plaintiffs medical bills the time of trial were regard “2. was claim nor wages There no instructed with to lost earning capacity employed diminished future as during Walters was Mrs. not 19-year marriage. course her repair surgery interposition “3. The and working reconstruction colon were trial, properly surgery, respect at the time of no surgical further to the complication during thyroidectomy, that occurred was contem- plated. presented . . . regarding No further evidence was future medical expenses.” The evidence herein bears out that medical science has done plaintiff all that can to s do alleviate condition and no further surgery contemplated, is although the same is not ruled out. This damage does not mean the to done Mrs. Walters has been she previous undone and that has been restored to her condition. simply It her helped by means condition cannot be further surgery or esophagus treatment. The substitute fashioned from a is, part Mrs. apparently, Walters’ colon functioning as well as expected can but that level perma- of function is a source of Mrs. problems swallows, nent for When she Walters. food does automatically go piles up It grotesque to her stomach. upper It bulges necessary in her throat and chest. is her manually massage the downward to bulges force the food to her process physically painful. stomach. The is As there is no valve traveling from keep up contents her stomach back esophagus, makeshift cannot lie flat and must she remain in a position keep contents of her gravity where will stomach in embarrassing, place. persons Her distasteful condition her, major leading around and a a normal obstacle to life. She has digestive problems. At the time ongoing serious of trial her life years. years Walters’ The between Mrs. was 41.9 expectancy functioning were present of her level of injury and attainment surgical pro- pain, disability, hospitalizations nightmare her neck and torso. disfiguring severe scars on She has cedures. pain- activities, eating sitting, continue to be Many such ful. record, we our having conclude collective reviewed the
After verdict the size of the herein. conscience not shocked judgment is affirmed. dissenting: magnitude in this C.J., verdict Schroeder, purports and what be miscon- is the result of error casé jurors. duct thing last closing argument counsel *7 jury the was:
said to esophagus $4 for million? I would not mine.” would sell their sell “Who harmless this to The court holds be error. requires juror part in the.first the remark each question
The
s
placed
plaintiff
the
individual
in
question
to answer
an
opinion
position. The second
is counsel’s
based on
improper.
quoted question
case. Both are
evidence
“golden
argument.
within
is known as the
rule”
what
falls
objected
the trial
sus-
for the defendant
court
Counsel
objection. However,
failed
admonish
tained
court
jury
disregard
remark.
prejudicial
cases have discussed situations when
ar
Kansas
by
guments made
counsel
should result
in reversal. Where
trial,
deprives
party
a
prejudice
of a fair
reversal
mandated.
Hassur,
678, 594
v.
Masson
(1979);
Henderson
Kan.
P.2d
Co.,
City
Light
v.
&
Kansas
Power
App.
7 Kan.
2d
642 P.2d
rev. denied
The Florida court
Branch,
(Fla.
1961),
130 So.
held the
Bullock
2d
Dist.
inflammatory
argument
effect of an
be
prejudicial and
need not
case of this kind to
error but
in a
show reversible
demonstrated
making
im
may
presumed from the fact of
of such an
be
opinion
its
argument.
court stated:
proper
destroy
anything
quickly
“It
is hard to
would more
conceive
by
principles
accepted
rules
which have been
the courts as the
structure of
damages
law,
juries
measuring
than for the
in actions
to award
standards
they
if
damages
with the standard of what
themselves
want
in accordance
would
they
injuries
by
plaintiff.
or a loved one had received the
suffered
a
In some
cases, indeed, many juror
money
would feel that all
in the world could not
injury
compensate him
such an
to himself
his
wife or children. Such a
juror
plaintiff
identifying
injuries-
as this —the
with a
s
notion
—could
law,
hardly
injustice
profitable might
fail to result
under our
however
be
by many plaintiffs
personal
injury
suits.”
deemed
Furthermore, clearly misconduct of the suggested. The foreman of the disclosed that the considered the by fact that award to the be would reduced attorney and, further, percentage of fees that the award would be by cut half federal income taxes. Counsel for the defendant was able to confirm this talking statement with two other jurors, following which presented counsel for the defendant affidavit to the trial court his motion for a new trial. There response by plaintiff was no s counsel to refute this affidavit. At hearing motion, requested defendant’s counsel jury panel confirm, court to call the entire under oath and on record, that such considerations had occurred. This was summarily denied the trial court. 60-259(a)
Under K.S.A. ground upon the first which a new trial may granted jury. ground This is not one requires production hearing of evidence at the on a motion for new trial affidavit under K.S.A. 60-259(g). court, opinion, in its point summarily by brushes this off
saying extraordinary present circumstances are not herein to error, support a claim of and suggests that affidavits of the necessary. were
Evidence admissible at a hearing on the motion for a new trial *8 K.S.A. under 60-444 is jury occurrences within the room that have a material bearing validity on the the verdict. See Concannon, Impeaching Civil Verdicts: Statements as furor Misconduct, Prejudicial 201, (1983); Cornejo 52 210-12 J.B.A.K. Probst, 529, 1202, v. Kan. App. 6 2d 630 P.2d 230 rev. denied (1981). Cornejo Appeals Kan. 817 In the case the Court of questions: faced with two (1) judge granted request Should the trial have defendant’s for a recall of the
jury panel? (2) jury impeached jury showing Can the verdict be on a that the considered attorney during income tax and fees its deliberations? Although issues there addressed are similar to those case, dramatically instant the facts here are different. Here the
40 form, information, proper to re- sufficient contained
record
request
upon the defendant’s
to act
the trial court
quire
developing the record.
assistance
jury
rule that the
is not to be
adopted
have
Kansas courts
subject
state or
damages awarded are not
that the
instructed
Co., 186
Spencer
Eby
v.
Construction
Kan.
taxes.
income
federal
Chicago,
&
Rediker v.
Rock Island
(1960);
345,
P.2d 18
350
70,
Co.,
rev. denied 581,
571 P.2d
Rld.
2d
Pacific
Kan. 845
instance,
that the
has commented
incidence
each
court
In
proper
is
its effect on the award
“not
factor to
of taxation
damages.”
jury
making
an award of
In
considered
decision,
as one of the bases for its
Spencer
adopted,
our court
Co.,
Chicago
Ry
Briggs
Great Western
reasoning
(1957):
charge
matters not
but will consider and take into account
mentioned therein.
jury,
will
on the
an
This is to assume that there
be misconduct
indulge.”
assumption in which we cannot
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v.
(2d) 410,
[1955],
(Tex.
App.)
Civ.
279 S.W.
reversed on other
McFerrin
”
(2d)
grounds,
[1956].’
Tex.
291 S.W.
Since our court not case, jury only safeguard part of the in the trial of a is to affirmatively there was the verdict show after only by accomplished hearing This can be rendered. charge for a new when the of misconduct is asserted motion ground for a new trial. as a jury obligation
If the court abandons its to test the for miscon- here, room, which occurs in the then it must also duct Spencer, indulges the rule asserted in which at best in a abandon presumption. permit questionable Failure of the court presumption questionable to be rebutted is a clear indication of against the defendant in this case. prejudice my opinion, require giving cases which instruction payable income taxes are that state and federal proper approach. awards indicate the damage instruction speculation. a fact it should know and avoids informs recent cases is to trend in allow such instructions. See 3
41 Goldstein, Axelrod, Nates, Kimball, Damages Minza, Tort rule, that it will (1984). § Inherent in the court’s 17.14 Actions jury by taking of the there will be misconduct on assume consideration, corollary is the that if the consequences into tax consequences erroneously take tax into consideration does it is misconduct award, damage consti- calculating tutes reversible error. Code, the Internal provision
A Revenue mirrored most statutes, personal injury awards state income tax excludes from year in gross income for the which the award would otherwise be 104(a)(2) § subject Specifically to taxes. 26 U.S.C. (whether damages received
exclusion embraces “the amount of agreement lump periodic sums as suit or whether or injuries personal on sickness.” payments) account of or The “damages” “prosecution legal must arise of a suit from or action based type on tort or rights” tort “a agree- settlement ment entered prosecution.” Minza, into lieu of such Nates, Kimball, Axelrod, Goldstein, § 17.13, pp. 17-46-7. exclusion, alone,without statutory standing an informative jury clearly
instruction to the bestows a collateral source benefit upon a successful in the amount taxes that would concern, paid. especially A otherwise related to defense counsel, juries is that will increase their awards to account they mistakenly plaintiffs pay will taxes assume have to on those awards, recovery thus resulting plaintiffs in double extent of nonexistent taxes. danger of awards in excess of losses led a number of has approve, require, cautionary or even
courts the issuance of a nontaxability personal injury instruction as to the award. The subject “your should be instructed will award not be plaintiff, you taxes to the not consider such income should your cautionary fixing taxes in the amount of award.” A instruc- complicate by making a trial tion this form would neither necessary, prejudice either additional instructions nor would speculation party. merely It would area of doubt or eliminate an computation improper impact have might damages. amount of v. include: Abele holding proper such an
Cases
instruction
Massi,
Rawlings,
(Del.
Bradshaw
1970);
F.
As
490,
Liepelt,
&
R.
v.
444 U.S.
62
States
Western
Co.
Norfolk
689,
(1980):
entirely possible
496-499,
43 course) (mistakenly judgment will be that taxable therefore make they enough get big so would what think he verdict that their imaginary tax is taken out of it.’ after the deserves “ ‘ 25.12, (1956),” § James, Harper 1327-1328 & Law of Torts at “II Co., omitted.) 1245, (Footnote &Oil 443 Domeracki v. Humble F.2d Refining denied, (CA 1971), U.S. S.Ct. 165. cert. L.Ed.2d “ risk. have also identified that ‘A number other commentators “ respondents’ expert computed witness ‘In this amount of case $302,000, plus training pecuniary value of care and loss at children; provided young have to his decedent would awarded $775,000. surely suppose damages It is fanciful erroneously large portion payable believed that award would be to the improperly in taxes therefore Federal Government and that inflated the recovery. speculation accurate, petitioner agree not this we Whether or *11 Circuit, that, Judge Ely wrote for the Ninth harm, put simply, giving the matter the instruction can do no it can “To help certainly by preventing jury inflating the from the award and thus overcompensating plaintiff assumption the basis of an on the erroneous that judgment Burlington Northern, Boxberger, will be taxable.” Inc. 529 284, 496, (CA 1975).’ at 100 S. F.2d U.S. Ct. at 759.” 48 Md. at 334-36. jury by by misconduct
Another area of asserted counsel for concerning attorney speculation my fees. the defendant was In permitted the trial court should have counsel for the opinion, jurors point this to examine on to determine defendant influenced the whether misconduct award.
Many
emphasize,
denying
motions for a new
of our cases
by
trial,
jurors
matters discussed
were
that extraneous
of com-
they
knowledge which
entitled to
Rut matters
mon
are
consider.
factually
must
be
correct and
involve
knowledge
of common
calculations,
conjecture.
speculation
or
extraneous
259,
City
Pittsburg,
Kan.
Since 1976 fees in actions of this nature are controlled statute. In legislature enacted L. 248, § ch. part: 1 which reads in by filing petition a civil “Whenever action is commenced or whenever a pleading damages personal injuries shall state a claim in a district court for or arising rendering professional death out of the of or the failure to render services by any provider, compensation attorneys’ health care reasonable to be fees paid by litigant approved by judge prior each in the shall action to final disposition Compensation the case the district court. for reasonable attorneys’ performed appeal fees judgment for services in an of a such appeals approved by judge action to the court of shall be the chief judge presiding panel hearing the case. Compensation attorneys’ performed for reasonable appeal fees for services in an *12 judgment any supreme of a such approved by action to the court shall be departmental justice department appeal originated. for the in which the In approving compensation, judge justice such or shall examine the same and considering difficulty make such determination the nature and of the issues reasonably necessary involved in the prepare present case and the time added.) (Emphasis the same.” enactment, foregoing The 7-121b, K.S.A. has been the same since 1976. Never has a record Supreme come before the Court malpractice in a indicating action that this statute has been applied making attorney an allowance for fees in the trial court, Supreme nor has member of the Court made or been requested appeal to make an allowance on Supreme to the Court. Note, Legislation: Approach Recent The Kansas to Medical 395, Malpractice, 16 (1977). Washburn 416-17 L.J. This statute is not a matter knowledge of common to members has it appears It jurors. courts, less to much or the the Bar ignored. been part pure speculation opinion, to avoid my
In
fees,
instructed on the
attorney
should
regarding
statute,
applied and enforced
it must be
this
provisions of
statutory provisions for the allowance
as are other
courts
&
v. Mutual
Health
Accident
attorney
See
fees.
Benefit
Wolf
(1961);
Association,
In re Estate
The law is Kirk v. Beachner leading cases defined. One of our well Co., Inc., P.2d 176 Construction is based to a situation there stated are confined rules stands for The case of the verdict. solely on the amount compen- than which more right that no verdict proposition legal test compensate. right which fails none sates —and compensation. is one of reasonable degree of must exercise of last resort my opinion, courts enterprise stability in free provide our judgment
economic within reason. fairly and administered justice if is to be system by the trial court made errors not declare serious should Courts *13 speculation with permeated harmless, permit a verdict to be where unchallenged, particularly go conjecture to and clearly verdict excessive on its face and indi- of the amount prejudice. cates journals periodicals
Many appearing articles in and address profession. growth in the medical The tremendous in the crisis liability higher premiums has in malpractice resulted insurance physicians pass along higher prices in health which insured Litigation: Plague DeVito, Abuse care consumers. of of 23, (1984), Medical Profession, 56 N.Y. St. the author B.J. says: system society’s precious gift adversary is a free its “The citizens. but,
system guardian rights, within which it functions is an effective of our society, rights carry obliga- in free these with them commensurate obtains who, responsibilities. lawyers especially capacity This is true of in tions their court, unique duty preserve, protect perpetuate have a as officers of founding spirit judicial process. process, of our Abuse of whether civil or law, lawyers, guarantee whether criminal courts or is to its ultimate demise.” Malpractice Medical articles include Other —Will Jumbo Crisis?, Spark
Awards Another Insurance A.B.A.J. Malpractice Damage Note, Medical Awards: The (1982); Approach, a Dual Need 11 Fordham Urb. L.J. respond
Where state courts of last resort fail to with reasonable justice, fairly public opinion administer shifts action to the con- legislative bodies. In the 1985 session of trol the Kansas Legislature, Senate Bill No. 110 has been introduced designed Judiciary liability Committee. The Bill to limit this nature. In the malpractice actions of of the Kansas Journal Association, VIII, Lawyers p. legislation Vol. No. Trial “extremely regressive.” Similar instances is described as where state courts of last resort have failed to act reason have Congress in the legislation resulted introduced United Carryover Congress States. bills in the 99th from the 98th Con- regulation gress concerning are bills Federal Trade Commission Bar, liability preemption product law of and federal states. respectfully
It is this court should reverse the submitted ground grant court and a new trial on the of misconduct and, this, argument closing failing counsel for the hearing the court should the case for a remand motion for charge concerning new trial damage award. fixing