IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION


SCOTT L. TINIUS,

 

Plaintiff,

No. C 03-3001-MWB

vs.


PRELIMINARY AND

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY

ST. ANTHONY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC., DAVID McCOY, and TAMMY ROETMAN,

Defendants.

____________________



TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF

NO. 4 - PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

NO. 5 - FALSE IMPRISONMENT

NO. 6 - MEDICAL BATTERY

NO. 7 - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS

NO. 8 - INVASION OF PRIVACY

NO. 9 - NEGLIGENCE

NO. 10 - DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

NO. 11 - ORDER OF TRIAL

NO. 12 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

NO. 13 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

NO. 14 - STIPULATED FACTS

NO. 15 - DEPOSITIONS

NO. 16 - INTERROGATORIES

NO. 17 - OBJECTIONS

NO. 18 - BENCH CONFERENCES

NO. 19 - NOTE-TAKING

NO. 20 - CONDUCT OF JURORS DURING TRIAL

 

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

NO. 3 - EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSES

NO. 4 - PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

NO. 5 - DAMAGES—IN GENERAL

NO. 6 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

NO. 7 - NOMINAL DAMAGES

NO. 8 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES

NO. 9 - DELIBERATIONS


VERDICT FORM


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY

INSTRUCTIONS

 

 

 

        Members of the jury, before the lawyers make their opening statements, I give you these preliminary instructions to help you better understand the trial and your role in it. Consider these instructions, together with any oral instructions given to you during the trial and the written final instructions given at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case. In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

 


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

 

        It will be your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will hear the evidence, decide what the facts are and then apply those facts to the law which I will give you in these preliminary instructions, any instructions given during the trial, and in the final instructions at the conclusion of the case. You will then deliberate and reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

        You have been chosen and sworn as jurors in this case to try the issues of fact presented by the parties. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I will give it to you.

        This case should be considered and decided by you as an action between persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or similar stations in life. In this case, one of the defendants, St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc., is a corporation. The mere fact that a party is a corporation does not mean that it is entitled to any greater or lesser consideration by you. All persons, including plaintiff Scott Tinius and defendants Dr. David McCoy, Tammy Roetman, and St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc., stand equal before the law, and are entitled to the same fair consideration by you. When a corporation, such as St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc., is involved, of course, it may act only through natural persons, such as its managers or employees, as its agents.

        You must also give separate consideration to each of Mr. Tinius’s claims against each defendant and give separate consideration to each defendant’s defense against each claim. You may find one, some, all, or none of the defendants liable on each claim, based on the evidence about each defendant or that defendant’s agents. St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc., can only be held liable on a claim if one or more of its managers or employees is also liable on that claim.

        You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF

 

        In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether you find certain facts have been proved. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party whose claim depends upon that fact. In this case, unless I tell you otherwise, that party is plaintiff Scott Tinius.

        The party with the burden of proof must prove facts by the “greater weight of the evidence.” To prove something “by the greater weight of the evidence” means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. The “greater weight of the evidence” is determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which evidence is more believable. If, on any issue in the case, you find that the evidence is equally balanced, then you cannot find that the issue has been proved.

        The “greater weight of the evidence” is not necessarily determined by the greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented. The testimony of a single witness that produces in your mind a belief in the likelihood of truth is sufficient for proof of any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony. This is so, even though a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if, after consideration of all of the evidence in the case, you hold a greater belief in the accuracy and reliability of that one witness.

        You may have heard of the term “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is a stricter standard, which applies in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. You should, therefore, put it out of your minds.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

 

 

        As I explained during jury selection, plaintiff Scott Tinius asserts five claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) medical battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) invasion of privacy; and (5) negligence. The defendants each deny these claims.

        Mr. Tinius’s claims consist of “elements,” which he must prove by the greater weight of the evidence to win on those claims. In the following instructions, I will explain the elements of Mr. Tinius’s claims and the defendants’ defense to those claims. I will provide you with further instructions on damages in the Final Jury Instructions at the end of the presentation of evidence.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - FALSE IMPRISONMENT

 

 

        Mr. Tinius’s first claim is for “false imprisonment.” “False imprisonment” is the unlawful restraint of an individual’s freedom of movement or personal liberty. In this case, Mr. Tinius contends that the defendants unlawfully restrained him on January 3, 2001, by detaining him in St. Anthony’s Regional Hospital and restraining his ability to leave.

        To win on his claim of “false imprisonment” against a particular defendant, Mr. Tinius must prove all of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, on or about January 3, 2001, the defendant intended to confine Mr. Tinius within St. Anthony’s Regional Hospital.

        Two, the defendant’s actions, either directly or indirectly, resulted in Mr. Tinius’s confinement within St. Anthony’s Regional Hospital.

        Three, the confinement was without any lawful reason.

        Four, Mr. Tinius was conscious of the confinement or was harmed by it.

        If Mr. Tinius has failed to prove all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then your verdict must be for that defendant on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “false imprisonment.” However, if Mr. Tinius has proved all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then Mr. Tinius is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim against that defendant.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - MEDICAL BATTERY

 

 

        Mr. Tinius’s second claim is for “medical battery.” A medical professional commits a “medical battery” if the medical professional treats a patient without the patient’s consent or performs a treatment other than the type of treatment to which the patient has consented. Mr. Tinius contends that, on January 3, 2001, he did not consent to undergo a catheterization procedure.

        To win on his claim of “medical battery” against a particular defendant, Mr. Tinius must prove all of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the defendant performed a catheterization procedure on Mr. Tinius without his consent.

        Two, the catheterization procedure was the proximate cause of Mr. Tinius’s damages.

        Three, Mr. Tinius suffered damages in some amount.

        If Mr. Tinius has failed to prove all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then your verdict must be for that defendant on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “medical battery.” However, if Mr. Tinius has proved all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then Mr. Tinius is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim against that defendant, unless that defendant has proved by the greater weight of the evidence the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

 

 

        Mr. Tinius’s third claim is for “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” A person is liable for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” if that person’s intentional or reckless acts cause another to suffer severe emotional distress. Mr. Tinius contends that the defendants’ intentional or reckless acts, in confining him in St. Anthony Regional Hospital and subjecting him to a catheterization procedure without his consent, caused him severe emotional distress.

        To win on his claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” against a particular defendant, Mr. Tinius must prove all of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the defendant’s conduct toward Mr. Tinius was outrageous.

“Outrageous conduct” means conduct so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

 

        Two, the defendant intentionally caused Mr. Tinius emotional distress or the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the probability that the defendant’s actions would cause Mr. Tinius emotional distress.

A person intends to inflict emotional distress when that person wants to cause distress or knows such distress is substantially certain to result from the person’s conduct. A person’s conduct is reckless if the person knows or has reason to know that the conduct creates a high degree of probability that emotional distress will result and the person acts with deliberate disregard of that probability.

 

        Three, Mr. Tinius suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.

The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe or extreme, but it need not reveal itself physically. “Severe or extreme” means substantial or enduring as distinguished from mild or brief. “Emotional distress” includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry. It must be so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person could be expected to bear it.

 

        Four, the defendant’s outrageous conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Tinius’s emotional distress.

        Five, Mr. Tinius suffered damages in some amount.

        If Mr. Tinius has failed to prove all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then your verdict must be for that defendant on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” However, if Mr. Tinius has proved all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then Mr. Tinius is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim against that defendant, unless the defendant has proved by the greater weight of the evidence the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - INVASION

OF PRIVACY

 

 

 

        Mr. Tinius’s fourth claim is for “invasion of privacy.” An “invasion of privacy” occurs when an individual’s right to solitude and seclusion is intruded upon by another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Mr. Tinius contends that the defendants intruded upon his person by inserting a catheter into his body without his consent.

        To win on his claim of “invasion of privacy” against a particular defendant, Mr. Tinius must prove all of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the defendant intruded upon Mr. Tinius’s right to solitude and seclusion by inserting a catheter into his body without his consent.

        Two, the intrusion was such that it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The alleged intrusion must be both subjectively offensive to the plaintiff and must be such that a reasonable person of the general public would be highly offended by the conduct.

 

        Third, the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of damages to Mr. Tinius.

        Four, Mr. Tinius suffered damages in some amount.

        If Mr. Tinius has failed to prove all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then your verdict must be for that defendant on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “invasion of privacy.” However, if Mr. Tinius has proved all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then Mr. Tinius is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim against that defendant, unless the defendant has proved the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - NEGLIGENCE

 

 

 

        Mr. Tinius’s fifth claim is for “negligence.” “Negligence” is a party’s breach of the duty of care owed by that party to another by failing to use the ordinary care that a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances. Mr. Tinius contends that the defendants were negligent in performing a medical procedure without medical need.

        To win on his claim of “negligence” against a particular defendant, Mr. Tinius must prove all of the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the defendant breached a duty of care to Mr. Tinius by performing a catheterization procedure without medical need.

A duty of care can be breached either by doing something that a reasonable careful person would not do under the circumstances or by failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under the circumstances.

 

        Two, the defendant’s breach of duty was a proximate cause of Mr. Tinius’s damages.

        Three, Mr. Tinius suffered damages in some amount.

        If Mr. Tinius has failed to prove all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against a particular defendant, then your verdict must be for that defendant on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “negligence.” However, if Mr. Tinius has proved all of the elements of this claim by the greater weight of the evidence against that defendant, then Mr. Tinius is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim against that defendant.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - DEFENDANTS’

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 

 

 

        In addition to claiming that Mr. Tinius has failed to prove the elements of his claims, the defendants assert that Mr. Tinius was suffering from an emergency condition that created the necessity for the catheterization procedure and that Mr. Tinius was incapable of giving his consent for that procedure.

        Ordinarily, a medical professional is required to obtain the “informed consent” of a patient prior to performing any procedure upon the patient. To obtain “informed consent,” a medical professional must disclose to the patient all known material information concerning the procedure that would be significant to a reasonable patient’s decision to consent or not to consent to the procedure. “Material information” includes the risks of the procedure or the consequences of failing to have the procedure or treatment.

        However, a medical professional is not liable to a patient for failure to obtain the patient’s “informed consent” in the following situations:

        One, a situation in which the patient is incapable of giving consent by reason of mental disability; OR

        Two, a situation in which an emergency makes it impractical to obtain the patient’s consent.

        If the defendants prove by the greater weight of the evidence that they could not obtain Mr. Tinius’s “informed consent” to the catheterization procedure because either or both of these situations existed, then the defendants cannot be liable on any claim based on performing the catherization procedure without Mr. Tinius’s consent. Therefore, if the defendants prove this defense, they cannot be liable on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “medical battery”; that part of his claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” based on performing a catheterization procedure without his consent; or his claim of “invasion of privacy.”


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - ORDER OF TRIAL

 

        The trial will proceed as follows:

        After these preliminary instructions, the plaintiff’s attorney may make an opening statement. Next, the lawyer for the defendants may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence, but simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence to be.

        After opening statements, the plaintiff will present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the defendants may cross-examine them. Following the plaintiff’s case, the defendants may present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the plaintiff may cross-examine them.

        After the evidence is concluded, I will give you most of the final instructions. The lawyers will then make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then give you the remaining final instruction on deliberations, and you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

 

        Evidence is:

        1.     Testimony.

        2.     Exhibits I admit into evidence.

        3.     Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

        Evidence may be “direct” or “circumstantial.” The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct and circumstantial evidence. The weight to be given any evidence is for you to decide.

        A particular item of evidence is sometimes admitted only for a limited purpose, and not for any other purpose. I will tell you if that happens, and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used.

        The fact that an exhibit may be shown to you does not mean that you must rely on it more than you rely on other evidence.

        The following are not evidence:

        1.     Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers.

        2.     Objections and rulings on objections.

        3.     Testimony I tell you to disregard.

        4.     Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom.

        The weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Also, the weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined merely by the number or volume of documents or exhibits. The weight of evidence depends upon its quality, which means how convincing it is, and not necessarily upon its quantity. For example, you may choose to believe the testimony of one witness, if you find that witness to be convincing, even if a number of other witnesses contradict that witness’s testimony. The quality and weight of the evidence are for you to decide.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - CREDIBILITY

OF WITNESSES

 

 

        In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says, only part of it, or none of it.

        In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witness’s intelligence, the opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the witness’s memory, any motives that witness may have for testifying a certain way, the manner of the witness while testifying, whether that witness said something different at an earlier time, the witness’s drug or alcohol use or addiction, if any, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe. In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes see or hear things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider, therefore, whether a contradiction results from an innocent misrecollection or sincere lapse of memory, or instead from an intentional falsehood or pretended lapse of memory.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - STIPULATED FACTS

 

        The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed or “stipulated” to certain facts and have reduced these facts to a written agreement or stipulation. Either counsel may, throughout the trial, read to you all or a portion of the stipulated facts. You should treat these stipulated facts as having been proved.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 15 - DEPOSITIONS

 

 

        Certain testimony from a deposition may be read into evidence. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. Consider that testimony as if it had been given in court.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 16 - INTERROGATORIES

 

        During this trial, you may hear the word “interrogatory.” An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. Consider interrogatories and the answers to them as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 - OBJECTIONS

 

        The lawyers may make objections and motions during the trial that I must rule upon. If I sustain an objection to a question before it is answered, do not draw any inferences or conclusions from the question itself. Also, the lawyers have a duty to object to testimony or other evidence that they believe is not properly admissible. Do not hold it against a lawyer or the party the lawyer represents because the lawyer has made objections.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 18 - BENCH CONFERENCES

 

        During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the lawyers out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a bench conference here while the jury is present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please be patient, because while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, to avoid confusion and error, and to save your valuable time. We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 19 - NOTE-TAKING

 

        If you want to take notes during the trial, you may, but be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all the evidence. If you choose not to take notes, remember that it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence.

        Notes you take during the trial are not necessarily more reliable than your memory or another juror’s memory. Therefore, you should not be overly influenced by the notes.

         If you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. At the end of each day, please leave your notes on your chair. At the end of the trial, you may take your notes out of the notebook and keep them, or leave them, and we will destroy them. No one will read the notes, either during or after the trial.

        You will notice that we have an official court reporter making a record of the trial. However, we will not have typewritten transcripts of this record available for your use in reaching your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 20 - CONDUCT OF JURORS

DURING TRIAL

 

 

        You will not be required to remain together while court is in recess. However, to insure fairness, you as jurors must obey the following rules:

        First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.

        Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors.

        Third, when you are outside the courtroom do not let anyone tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me. If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial, please report it to me.

        Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case—you should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important that you not only do justice in this case, but that you also give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of the case sees you talking to a person from the other side—even if it is simply to pass the time of day—an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. If any lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator or the like, it is because they are not supposed to talk or visit with you.

        Fifth, do not read any news stories or articles about the case, or about anyone involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. If you want, you can have your spouse or a friend clip out any stories and set them aside to give you after the trial is over. I can assure you, however, that by the time you have heard the evidence in this case you will know more about the matter than anyone will learn through the news media.

        Sixth, do not do any research—on the Internet, in libraries, in the newspapers, or in any other way—or make any investigation about this case on your own. You must decide this case based on the evidence presented in court and the law as I explain it to you in my instructions.

        Seventh, do not make up your mind during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

        Eighth, if at anytime during the trial you have a problem that you would like to bring to my attention, or if you feel ill or need to go to the restroom, please send a note to the Court Security Officer, who will deliver it to me. I want you to be comfortable, so please do not hesitate to inform me of any problem.

        DATED this 5th day of January, 2005.

 

                                                     mwbjustsig.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION




        Members of the jury, the written instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and the oral instructions I gave you during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions.

        The instructions I am about to give you, as well as the preliminary instructions given to you at the beginning of the trial, are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. All instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed. This is true even though some of the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial are not repeated here.

        In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

        Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action, or remark that I have made during the course of this trial have I intended to give any opinion or suggestion as to what your verdict should be.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

 

 

 

        In Preliminary Instruction No. 13, I instructed you generally on the credibility of witnesses. However, I must now give you some further instructions on how the credibility of witnesses can be “impeached.”

        Any witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence; by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony. If earlier statements of a witness were admitted into evidence, they were not admitted to prove that the contents of those statements were true. Instead, you may consider those earlier statements only to determine whether you think they are consistent or inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness, and, therefore, whether they affect the credibility of that witness.

        If you believe that a witness has been discredited or impeached, it is your exclusive right to give that witness’s testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR

LIMITED PURPOSES

 

 

 

        As I explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 12, a particular item of evidence is sometimes admitted only for a limited purpose, and not for any other purpose. In this case, you have heard evidence that preliminary laboratory results showed that plaintiff Scott Tinius had used methamphetamine and marijuana on or before January 3, 2001. Although you may consider this evidence, you must not decide this case solely on the basis that Mr. Tinius tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

 

 

        Plaintiff Scott Tinius asserts five claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) medical battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) invasion of privacy; and (5) negligence. The defendants each deny these claims.

        Now that you have heard all of the evidence, you must decide whether or not Mr. Tinius has proved, by the greater weight of the evidence, all of the elements of his claims, and whether or not the defendants have proved, by the greater weight of the evidence, the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10, if that defense is applicable to a particular claim. You must decide from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. Once you decide what the facts are, you must then apply those facts to the law as explained in my preliminary instructions, these final instructions, and any instructions I gave you during the trial. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

        I will now give you some additional instructions on damages, if any, to which Mr. Tinius may be entitled, if he prevails on one or more of his claims against one or more defendants.

 

 


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - DAMAGES—IN GENERAL

 

 

        The fact that I am instructing you on the proper measure of damages should not be considered as an indication that I have any view as to which party is entitled to your verdict in this case. Instructions as to the measure of damages are given only for your guidance in the event that you should find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages in accord with the other instructions.

        If you find in favor of Mr. Tinius on a particular claim, then you must award him such sum as you find by the greater weight of the evidence will fairly and justly compensate him for any damages that you find were proximately caused to him by the wrongful conduct of the defendants at issue in that claim. An act is a “proximate cause” of damage if the act was a substantial factor in producing the damage and the damage would not have happened except for the act. “Substantial” means that the act had such an effect in producing damage as to lead a reasonable person to regard it as a cause of the damage.

        In arriving at an amount of damages, you cannot establish a figure by taking down the estimate of each juror as to damages and agreeing in advance that the average of those estimates shall be your award of damages. Rather, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence.

        Remember, throughout your deliberations, you must not engage in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. Except where instructed otherwise, in your consideration of punitive damages in Final Jury Instruction No. 8, you must not award damages under these Instructions by way of punishment or through sympathy. Your judgment must not be exercised arbitrarily, or out of sympathy or prejudice, for or against any of the parties.

        You must award the full amount of damages, if any, that Mr. Tinius has proved by the greater weight of the evidence. However, the amount you assess for damages on any claim must not exceed the amount proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendants at issue in that claim as proved by the evidence. Also, do not allow any amount awarded for one item of damages to be included in any amount awarded for any other item of damages, because a plaintiff is not entitled to recover duplicate damages.

        Attached to these Instructions is a Verdict Form, which you must fill out. In the “Damages” section of the Verdict Form for each claim, you should only award those damages, if any, that the plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence were proximately caused by the defendants’ wrongful conduct toward the plaintiff at issue in that claim.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

 

 

        Mr. Tinius seeks “damages” for “emotional distress” and “physical pain and suffering” on each of his claims.

        Emotional distress. Damages for “emotional distress” are the amount of damages that will reasonably compensate Mr. Tinius for the emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life that were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue in a particular claim. Damages for “emotional distress” must compensate Mr. Tinius for any emotional distress that he suffered from the time of the wrongful conduct until the time that you give your verdict. You may also award “future emotional distress” damages, but only if you find that Mr. Tinius has proved that his emotional distress proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue in a particular claim is reasonably certain to extend into the future.

        Physical pain and suffering. Damages for “physical pain and suffering” are the amount of damages that will reasonably compensate Mr. Tinius for physical pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, bodily suffering or discomfort, that were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue in a particular claim. Damages for “physical pain and suffering” must compensate Mr. Tinius for any physical pain and suffering that he suffered from the time of the wrongful conduct until the time that you give your verdict. You may also award “future physical pain and suffering” damages, but only if you find that Mr. Tinius has proved that his physical pain and suffering proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue in a particular claim are reasonably certain to extend into the future.

        Calculation of damages. The amount, if any, that you assess for damages for “emotional distress” or “physical pain and suffering” cannot be measured by an exact or mathematical standard, and Mr. Tinius is not required to introduce evidence of the monetary value of such damages. However, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence to determine the amount of such damages.

        Damages for “future emotional distress” or “future physical pain and suffering” must be reduced to “present value.” “Present value” is a sum of money paid now in advance which, together with interest earned at a reasonable rate of return, will compensate the plaintiff for future losses.

        The amount of these items of damages, if any, that you award for each claim may be the same or different, but the damages awarded must reflect the amount of damages caused to the plaintiff by the wrongful conduct at issue in that claim.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - NOMINAL DAMAGES

 

        If you find in favor of Mr. Tinius on a particular claim, but you find that his damages proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue in that claim have no monetary value, then you must return a verdict on that claim for Mr. Tinius in the nominal amount of One Dollar ($1.00).


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

        In addition to compensatory damages, as described in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or nominal damages, as described in Final Jury Instruction No. 7, the law permits the jury, under certain circumstances, to award punitive damages. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate for injury but are allowed to punish the defendants and to discourage the defendants and others from like conduct in the future.

        Punitive damages may be awarded on any claim on which Mr. Tinius has prevailed against any individual defendant found liable on that claim. However, punitive damages cannot be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. Punitive damages can only be awarded on a particular claim and against a specific defendant, if Mr. Tinius proves both of the following by the greater weight of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence:

        One, that the conduct of the defendant in question in the claim at issue constituted a willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another.

Conduct is “willful and wanton” when a person intentionally does an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that harm will follow.

 

        Two, the conduct of the defendant in question in the claim at issue caused actual damage to Mr. Tinius.

        There is no exact rule to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, that you should award on any claim. However, in determining the amount of punitive damages, if any, to award on a particular claim against a particular defendant, you may consider all the evidence including the following: the nature of that defendant’s conduct; the amount of punitive damages that will punish and discourage like conduct by that defendant in view of that defendant’s financial condition; and Mr. Tinius’s actual damages.

        In addition, if you award punitive damages against any defendant on any claim, you will be asked to indicate whether the conduct of that defendant was directed specifically at Mr. Tinius. You need not be concerned with the effect of your determination on this question, because the effect of your determination on this question is for me to decide.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - DELIBERATIONS

 

 

        In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules you must follow.

        First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in court.

        Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should, but do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict. Remember at all times that you are not partisans. You are judges—judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

        Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the Court Security Officer, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell anyone—including me—how your votes stand numerically.

        Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I have given to you in my instructions. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be—that is entirely for you to decide.

        Finally, I am giving you the Verdict Form. A Verdict Form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. Your verdict on each claim against each defendant must be unanimous. You will take the Verdict Form to the jury room. When you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson must complete one copy of the Verdict Form and all of you must sign that copy to record your individual agreement with the verdict and to show that it is unanimous. The foreperson must bring the signed Verdict Form to the courtroom when it is time to announce your verdict. When you have reached a verdict, the foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

        DATED this 7th day of January, 2005.

 

                                                     mwbjustsig1.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION



SCOTT L. TINIUS,

 

Plaintiff,

No. C 03-3001-MWB

vs.


VERDICT FORM


ST. ANTHONY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC., DAVID McCOY, and TAMMY ROETMAN,

Defendants.

____________________

 

        On the claims of plaintiff Scott L. Tinius, we, the Jury, find as follows:


FALSE IMPRISONMENT

VERDICT

Step 1:

Proof of Claim

Has plaintiff Scott L. Tinius proved his claim of “false imprisonment,” as explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 5, against one or more defendants? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer any more questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s “medical battery” claim. However, if your answer is “yes,” please continue with the remaining steps in this section of the Verdict Form.)


___ Yes


___ No

Step 2:

Liable Defendant(s)

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” which one or more of the following defendants do you find is liable for “false imprisonment”? (Remember that St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. (St. Anthony), can only be liable on this claim if one of its employees is also liable on this claim.)

__ Dr. McCoy

__ Ms. Roetman

___ St. Anthony

Step 3: Compensatory or Nominal Damages

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” please award “compensatory damages” in some amount, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or “nominal damages” of $1.00, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7.

$ ____________ for past emotional distress

$ ____________ for future emotional distress

$ ____________ for past physical pain and suffering

$ ____________ for future physical pain and suffering



$ ____________ for nominal damages

Step 4:

Punitive Damages

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award against each defendant found liable in Step 2, as punitive damages are explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8? (Remember that no punitive damages can be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc.)

 

Dr. McCoy:

$ ____________

Ms. Roetman:

$ ____________

 

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

 

MEDICAL BATTERY

VERDICT

Step 1:

Proof of Claim

Has plaintiff Scott L. Tinius proved his claim of “medical battery,” as explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 6, against one or more defendants? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer any more questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s “intentional infliction of emotional distress” claim. However, if your answer is “yes,” please continue with the remaining steps in this section of the Verdict Form.)


___ Yes


___ No

Step 2:

(a)

Affirmative Defense

Have the defendants proved the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10? (If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” answer the question in Step 2(b), but do not answer any other questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” However, if your answer in Step 2(a) was “no,” please consider the questions in Steps 3, 4, and 5 of this section.)

___ Yes


___ No

(b)

Ground(s)

If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” on which one or more grounds do you find that the defendants have proved the affirmative defense?

___ Mr. Tinius was incapable of giving consent by reason of mental disability

___ An emergency made it impractical to obtain Mr. Tinius’s consent

Step 3:

Liable Defendant(s)

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” which one or more of the following defendants do you find is liable for “medical battery”? (Remember that St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. (St. Anthony), can only be liable on this claim if one of its employees is also liable on this claim.)

__ Dr. McCoy

__ Ms. Roetman

__ St. Anthony

Step 4: Compensatory or Nominal Damages

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” please award “compensatory damages” in some amount, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or “nominal damages” of $1.00, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7.

$ ____________ for past emotional distress

$ ____________ for future emotional distress

$ ____________ for past physical pain and suffering

$ ____________ for future physical pain and suffering



$ ____________ for nominal damages

Step 5:

Punitive Damages

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award against each defendant found liable in Step 3, as punitive damages are explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8? (Remember that no punitive damages can be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc.)

 

Dr. McCoy:

$ ____________

Ms. Roetman:

$ ____________

 

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

VERDICT

Step 1:

Proof of Claim

Has plaintiff Scott L. Tinius proved his claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” as explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 7, against one or more defendants? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer any more questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s “invasion of privacy” claim. However, if your answer is “yes,” please continue with the remaining steps in this section of the Verdict Form.)


___ Yes


___ No

Step 2:

(a)

Affirmative Defense

Have the defendants proved the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10? (If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” answer the remainder of the questions in this section, but in Step 3(b), the defendants can only be held liable, if at all, for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” on the basis of confining Mr. Tinius.)

___ Yes


___ No

(b)

Ground(s)

If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” on which one or more grounds do you find that the defendants have proved the affirmative defense?

___ Mr. Tinius was incapable of giving consent by reason of mental disability

___ An emergency made it impractical to obtain Mr. Tinius’s consent

Step 3:

(a)

Liable Defendant(s)

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” which one or more of the following defendants do you find is liable for “medical battery”? (Remember that St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. (St. Anthony), can only be liable on this claim if one of its employees is also liable on this claim.) In Step 3(b), please indicate whether the outrageous conduct of any defendant held liable on this claim consisted of confining Mr. Tinius in St. Anthony Regional Hospital, subjecting him to a catheterization procedure without his consent, or both. (If you answered “yes” to Step 2(a), then you cannot choose the “catheterizing” alternative in Step 3(b).)

__ Dr. McCoy

__ Ms. Roetman

__ St. Anthony

(b)

Ground(s)

___ confining

___ catheterizing

___ confining

___ catheterizing

___ confining

___ catheterizing

Step 4: Compensatory or Nominal Damages

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” please award “compensatory damages” in some amount, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or “nominal damages” of $1.00, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7.

$ ____________ for past emotional distress

$ ____________ for future emotional distress

$ ____________ for past physical pain and suffering

$ ____________ for future physical pain and suffering



$ ____________ for nominal damages

Step 5:

Punitive Damages

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award against each defendant found liable in Step 3, as punitive damages are explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8? (Remember that no punitive damages can be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc.)

 

Dr. McCoy:

$ ____________

Ms. Roetman:

$ ____________

 

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

 

INVASION OF PRIVACY

VERDICT

Step 1:

Proof of Claim

Has plaintiff Scott L. Tinius proved his claim of “invasion of privacy,” as explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 8, against one or more defendants? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer any more questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s “negligence” claim. However, if your answer is “yes,” please continue with the remaining steps in this section of the Verdict Form.)


___ Yes


___ No

Step 2:

(a)

Affirmative Defense

Have the defendants proved the affirmative defense explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 10? (If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” answer the question in Step 2(b), but do not answer any other questions in this section. Instead, go on to consider your verdict on Mr. Tinius’s “negligence” claim.” However, if your answer in Step 2(a) was “no,” please consider the questions in Steps 3, 4, and 5 of this section.)

___ Yes


___ No

(b)

Ground(s)

If your answer in Step 2(a) was “yes,” on which one or more grounds do you find that the defendants have proved the affirmative defense?

___ Mr. Tinius was incapable of giving consent by reason of mental disability

___ An emergency made it impractical to obtain Mr. Tinius’s consent

Step 3:

Liable Defendant(s)

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” which one or more of the following defendants do you find is liable for “invasion of privacy”? (Remember that St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. (St. Anthony), can only be liable on this claim if one of its employees is also liable on this claim.)

__ Dr. McCoy

__ Ms. Roetman

__ St. Anthony

Step 4: Compensatory or Nominal Damages

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” please award “compensatory damages” in some amount, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or “nominal damages” of $1.00, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7.

$ ____________ for past emotional distress

$ ____________ for future emotional distress

$ ____________ for past physical pain and suffering

$ ____________ for future physical pain and suffering



$ ____________ for nominal damages

Step 5:

Punitive Damages

If your answer to Step 1 was “yes,” and your answer to Step 2(a) was “no,” what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award against each defendant found liable in Step 3, as punitive damages are explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8? (Remember that no punitive damages can be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc.)

 

Dr. McCoy:

$ ____________

Ms. Roetman:

$ ____________

 

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

 

NEGLIGENCE

VERDICT

Step 1:

Proof of Claim

Has plaintiff Scott L. Tinius proved his claim of “negligence,” as explained in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 9, against one or more defendants? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer any more questions in this section. Instead, notify the Court Security Officer that you have reached a verdict. However, if your answer is “yes,” please continue with the remaining steps in this section of the Verdict Form.)


___ Yes


___ No

Step 2:

Liable Defendant(s)

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” which one or more of the following defendants do you find is liable for “negligence”? (Remember that St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc. (St. Anthony), can only be liable on this claim if one of its employees is also liable on this claim.)

__ Dr. McCoy

__ Ms. Roetman

__ St. Anthony

Step 3: Compensatory or Nominal Damages

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” please award “compensatory damages” in some amount, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or “nominal damages” of $1.00, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7.

$ ____________ for past emotional distress

$ ____________ for future emotional distress

$ ____________ for past physical pain and suffering

$ ____________ for future physical pain and suffering



$ ____________ for nominal damages

Step 4:

Punitive Damages

If your answer in Step 1 was “yes,” what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award against each defendant found liable in Step 2, as punitive damages are explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8? (Remember that no punitive damages can be awarded against St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc.)

 

Dr. McCoy:

$ ____________

Ms. Roetman:

$ ____________

 

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

Was the conduct of this defendant directed specifi-cally at Mr. Tinius?

___ Yes ___ No

 



Date: ________________      Time: ________________



_______________________________

Foreperson

_______________________________

Juror


________________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror