[258]*258O’Connor, C.J.
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked to consider the role of foreseeability as an element of medical negligence. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether foreseeability of the risk of harm is a factor that must always be considered when determining a medical professional’s duties or if it is an irrelevant factor that may never be considered when determining a medical professional’s duties. We hold that it is neither.
{¶ 2} Foreseeability is generally relevant to a determination of whether a physician has exercised reasonable care in understanding or determining the existence of a risk of harm associated with a particular course of treatment. But when the parties do not dispute that a physician conducted a risk-benefit analysis prior to treating a patient and do not dispute that the physician understood that the chosen course of treatment carried some risk of harm, a jury instruction regarding the foreseeability of harm need not be given. However, the instruction would not be patently prejudicial, and the judgment is not subject to reversal absent a showing of material prejudice.
{¶ 3} Under the facts of this case, the trial court’s decision to provide a superfluous instruction to the jury on foreseeability was not prejudicial error. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Relevant Background
{¶ 4} This medical-negligence action arose from the death of Seth Niles Cromer at the pediatric intensive-care unit (“PICU”) of Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Akron. Melinda Cromer, Seth’s mother, and Roderick Cromer Jr., Seth’s father, individually and as administrator, brought an action against the hospital, alleging that Seth’s death was caused by the combined and individual negligence of multiple hospital employees.
The Treatment Provided
{¶ 5} Much of the evidence was disputed at trial. But it was shown that Seth’s parents took him to the hospital’s emergency room at approximately 10:44 p.m. on Saturday, January 13, 2007, after Seth, who had been treated earlier in the week for an ear infection, became very ill. At triage, Seth’s symptoms and vital signs included an elevated pulse and rate of respiration, a tender abdomen with pressure, pale skin, normal temperature, and normal blood pressure. Seth’s condition was assessed as urgent, and upon further examination by emergency-room doctors, Seth was diagnosed as suffering from shock. At approximately 11:30 p.m., the attending emergency-room physician, Brett Luxmore, D.O., ordered the administration of oxygen therapy, intravenous fluids, and intravenous antibiotics. Because Seth’s blood pressure had lowered and was unstable by the [259]*259time Dr. Luxmore assessed him, Dr. Luxmore also ordered the administration of epinephrine in an attempt to raise the blood pressure.
{¶ 6} Initial blood tests, taken at midnight, indicated that Seth was suffering from metabolic acidosis, which means that his blood was not delivering adequate oxygen to his tissues. But he was not suffering from respiratory acidosis, which would have meant that his blood was accumulating carbon dioxide. Around 12:30 a.m. on January 14, 2007, the amount of oxygen in Seth’s blood rose to a normal level. His blood pressure improved as well, albeit due to the continuous administration of a high dose of epinephrine.
{¶ 7} While Seth was being transferred from the emergency room to PICU around 1:10 a.m., his condition worsened. It was later discovered that the carbon-dioxide levels in Seth’s blood had begun to rise. The attending PICU physician, Richard Wendorf, M.D., (1) inserted a central-venous-access catheter in Seth’s femoral vein for the instant administration of medication and fluids as well as for rapid assessment of blood-gas levels and fluid balance, (2) inserted an arterial catheter in Seth’s femoral artery for continuous real-time monitoring of blood pressure, and then (3) inserted a tube into Seth’s trachea to decrease the heart’s burden and facilitate ventilation. Dr. Wendorf completed these procedures by 1:46 a.m., 2:00 a.m., and 2:15 a.m., respectively. Seth’s condition improved until approximately 3:35 a.m., at which point his blood pressure dropped precipitously and he went into cardiac arrest. Seth died soon after.
The Cromers’ Expert Testimony
{¶ 8} The Cromers’ expert, Margaret Parker, M.D., agreed that the interventions and treatment that the emergency-room and PICU physicians had ordered were appropriate. However, she did not agree that the timing of the interventions and treatment, particularly intubation, was appropriate.
{¶ 9} Dr. Parker testified that the longer shock is allowed to progress, the harder the strain on the heart, and the harder it is to reverse the problem. Dr. Parker explained that intubation helps to increase blood oxygenation, decrease carbon dioxide levels, and decrease the energy spent on breathing. Dr. Parker testified that the standard of care for medical professionals would mandate immediate intubation upon discovering evidence of severe metabolic and respiratory acidosis. Dr. Parker opined that Seth’s respiratory rate of 31 breaths per minute and the blood-test results delivered at 12:19 a.m. were clear evidence of severe metabolic and respiratory acidosis. Dr. Parker concluded that the hospital employees deviated from the standard of care by not intubating Seth until two hours later.
{¶ 10} Specifically, Dr. Parker testified that Dr. Luxmore breached the standard of care by not intubating Seth in the emergency room by 12:30 a.m. and that [260]*260Dr. Wendorf breached the standard of care by not intubating Seth immediately upon his arrival at the PICU. However, Dr. Parker later testified that Dr. Wendorf s decision to place a central venous line prior to intubation was within the standard of care. Dr. Parker also agreed that both doctors considered the risks of both immediate and delayed intubation prior to deciding to implement their particular courses of action. But she did not agree that the doctors appropriately weighed the risks and benefits and did not agree that their clinical judgments regarding the timing of intubation were reasonable.
The Hospital’s Expert Testimony
{¶ 11} Dr. Luxmore acknowledged that shock is a life-threatening condition that can lead to death if not properly treated. Dr. Luxmore testified that although intubation could decrease the levels of carbon dioxide in the blood and decrease the strain on a patient’s heart, that benefit must be weighed against the risk of causing a sudden drop in blood pressure and cardiac arrest. Because Seth’s blood pressure was tenuous but he otherwise had a stable airway and his circulatory system was not building up carbon dioxide while he was in the emergency room, Dr. Luxmore decided that the benefit of intubation at that time was outweighed by the risk that Seth would not survive the process of intubation.
{¶ 12} One of the hospital’s experts, Robert Kennedy, M.D., explained that the sedation required to intubate a patient could cause blood pressure to bottom out completely. Dr. Kennedy testified that although intubation would be important in the long run to decrease the strain on the patient, other measures to stabilize the patient take priority in the emergency department if the patient is able to breathe. Dr. Kennedy opined that Dr. Luxmore complied with the standard of care when he decided not to intubate Seth in the emergency department given that Seth’s blood circulation required intervention and his carbon-dioxide levels were normal.
{¶ 13} Dr. Wendorf testified that he knew right away that he was going to intubate Seth due to the risk that Seth’s condition would worsen, but that immediate intubation without taking certain precautions would have been unnecessarily risky in light of-Seth’s precarious condition. Another expert, Douglas Wilson, M.D., testified that the importance of relieving the strain on a patient’s cardiovascular system must be weighed against the risk of inducing cardiac arrest. Dr. Wilson opined that Dr. Wendorf understood the risks and benefits involved and weighed them appropriately in reaching his decision on the sequence of placing catheters and intubating Seth.
The Jury Instructions
{¶ 14} After the close of evidence, the parties discussed their proposed jury instructions with the court. Many of the parties’ proposed instructions incorpo[261]*261rated standard language from the Ohio Jury Instructions outlining the elements of medical negligence and applicable standard of care. However, the hospital also requested an instruction on the foreseeability of harm using language from the general negligence provisions of the Ohio Jury Instructions.
{¶ 15} The Cromers objected to the instruction, arguing that an instruction to the jury on foreseeability is required only in a regular negligence claim and is not part of the Ohio Jury Instructions for medical negligence. The Cromers further argued that the instruction was not supported by the evidence, because there was no testimony that the doctors did not know that the failure to appropriately treat a patient in shock could lead to death. The trial court ultimately instructed the jury on the elements of negligence as they applied to the hospital and its employees and gave an instruction on foreseeability that asked the jury to determine whether the hospital employees should have foreseen that Seth’s death was a likely result of their actions or failure to act.
The Verdict
{¶ 16} At the end of its charge, the trial court provided general verdict forms and multiple interrogatories to the jury. The first interrogatory asked whether the hospital had been negligent. Another interrogatory asked whether the hospital’s negligence was a direct and proximate cause of Seth Cromer’s death. The trial court explained that if the jury’s answer to the first interrogatory was “no,” then its deliberations were complete.
{¶ 17} After the jury completed its deliberations, the trial court reviewed the forms and noted that the jury had answered “no” on both the negligence and causation interrogatories. The trial court stated that although it would not have been necessary to complete the interrogatory on proximate causation, the jury’s answer was consistent with the interrogatory on negligence. The trial court polled the jury, provided the interrogatories to counsel, and upon receiving no objection, excused the jury. The trial court accordingly entered judgment in favor of Children’s Hospital.
The Posttrial Proceedings
{¶ 18} The Cromers moved for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the interrogatories finding both no negligence and no causation were in conflict. They also claimed that there were multiple errors in the jury instructions and that the jury’s completion of the causation interrogatory constituted a clear sign that the erroneous instructions led the jury to an improper application of the law. The trial court denied the motion, stating that although the jury did not follow the court’s instruction that deliberations would be complete upon a finding that negligence was not shown, the interrogatories were consistent with one another and with the general verdict.
[262]*262{¶ 19} The Cromers appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by including an instruction on foreseeability when it instructed the jury on the hospital’s standard of care. The Cromers additionally argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court had erroneously denied their motion for a new trial. And as primary support for their arguments, the Cromers pointed to the jury’s unnecessary completion of the causation interrogatory as confirmation that the jury had misunderstood the law and applied the instructions in a way that led to an erroneous result. The Cromers further contended that the fact that the jury found no causation did not render harmless any error in its finding regarding negligence, because once the jury had determined that there was no negligence, a finding of no causation was a logical impossibility. The appellate court found merit in the Cromers’ jury-instruction argument and reversed.
{¶ 20} Central to the appellate court’s holding was its determination that the question of foreseeability of harm was irrelevant to a determination of a medical professional’s standard of care. 2012-Ohio-5154, 985 N.E.2d 548, ¶ 27. Specifically, the court held that a physician’s duty is established by the physician-patient relationship alone with no consideration of foreseeability. Id. at ¶ 24. The court concluded that the trial court’s instruction on the foreseeability of the risk of harm during medical treatment constituted an incorrect statement of law that required reversal. Id. Finally, the appellate court stated that it could not conclude that the error was rendered harmless by the jury’s decision to answer the interrogatory on causation. Id. at ¶ 25. Accordingly, the court held that reversal and a remand for a new trial were required. Because the appellate court’s holding disposed of the appeal, the Cromers’ remaining arguments were rendered moot and were not addressed.
{¶ 21} The cause is now before this court upon our acceptance of a discretionary appeal to determine the propriety of including a foreseeability instruction when instructing a jury on the standard of care for medical professionals. 134 Ohio St.3d 1484, 2013-Ohio-902, 984 N.E.2d 28.
Analysis
Standard of Review
{¶ 22} A trial court is obligated to provide jury instructions that correctly and completely state the law. Sharp v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 307, 312, 649 N.E.2d 1219 (1995). The jury instructions must also be warranted by the evidence presented in a case. Estate of Hall v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 125 Ohio St.3d 300, 2010-Ohio-1041, 927 N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 26. The question of whether a jury instruction is legally correct and factually warranted is subject to de novo review. Id. We begin our de novo review by examining whether a correct statement of [263]*263the law regarding medical negligence includes consideration of the foreseeability of a risk of harm.
Relevance of Foreseeability in a Medical-Negligence Claim
{¶ 23} In general, a cause of action for negligence requires proof of (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach and injury, and (4) damages. See Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). The elements are the same for medical negligence. Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Servs., Inc., 128 Ohio St.3d 555, 2011-Ohio-1817, 948 N.E.2d 944, ¶ 13. Only the elements relating to duty are at issue in this case.
{¶ 24} The concept of foreseeability is an important part of all negligence claims, because “[t]he existence of a duty depends on the foreseeability of the injury.” Menifee at 77. As a society, we expect people to exercise reasonable precautions against the risks that a reasonably prudent person would anticipate. Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96, 98, 543 N.E.2d 1188 (1989). Conversely, we do not expect people to guard against risks that the reasonable person would not foresee. Menifee at 77; Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton & Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Section 43, 280 (5th Ed.1984). The foreseeability of the risk of harm is not affected by the magnitude, severity, or exact probability of a particular harm, but instead by the question of whether some risk of harm would be foreseeable to the reasonably prudent person. See Gedeon v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 128 Ohio St. 335, 339, 190 N.E. 924 (1934). Accordingly, the existence and scope of a person’s legal duty is determined by the reasonably foreseeable, general risk of harm that is involved.
{¶ 25} The existence of an actor’s duty to another person usually arises from the foreseeability of injury to someone in that other person’s “general situation.” Gedeon at 339. But there are also certain legally recognized relationships between parties that can establish the existence of an actor’s duty to another person. Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr., 77 Ohio St.3d 284, 293, 673 N.E.2d 1311 (1997). The relationship between medical professionals and their patients is one of those legally recognized relationships. Loumsbury v. VanBuren, 94 Ohio St.3d 231, 235, 762 N.E.2d 354 (2002). The physician-patient relationship arises from an express or implied contract between the physician and patient and imposes on the physician a fiduciary duty to exercise good faith. Id., quoting Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 147, 150, 569 N.E.2d 875 (1991).
{¶ 26} In the context of an established physician-patient relationship, there is no need to independently determine whether the patient falls within the class of people who could foreseeably be injured, because the existence of the physician’s [264]*264duty to that patient is already clear. To this extent, the appellate court accurately held that foreseeability is irrelevant to a determination of a physician’s duty. 2012-Ohio-5154, 985 N.E.2d 548, at ¶ 22. But the foreseeability of one’s duty to a particular person does not necessarily determine the foreseeability of a risk of harm, and it therefore does not end the inquiry into the scope of an actor’s duty to another person.
{¶ 27} The scope of any duty owed is the standard of care that an actor must exercise. Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. at 98; Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 578, 613 N.E.2d 1014 (1993). The minimum standard of care expected under any circumstances is to exercise that degree of care and caution that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. Gedeon at 338. In the physician-patient relationship, however, the scope of the duty owed includes an augmented expectation that physicians will exercise the degree of care that is reasonable in light of the physician’s superior training and knowledge. Berdyck at 579. Thus, the standard of care applicable to medical professionals is to exercise the degree of care that a medical professional of ordinary skill, care, and diligence would exercise under similar circumstances. Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976), at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 28} Although the standard of care for a medical professional is heightened, it does not necessarily supplant all consideration of foreseeability. As part of their standard of care, medical professionals are expected to be able to recognize certain symptoms of illness and injury, and they are expected to be aware of the associated risk of harm. See Berdyck at 581 (obstetrical staff nurses are expected to recognize symptoms of major obstetrical complications and take appropriate action to prevent harm). In other words, they are expected to foresee a risk of harm that a medical professional of ordinary skill, care, and diligence would foresee under similar circumstances. And just as with the general negligence standard, it necessarily follows that we would not expect medical professionals to guard against a risk of harm that a medical professional of ordinary skill, care, and diligence would not foresee. See, e.g., Keebler v. Winfield Carraway Hosp., 531 So.2d 841, 844-845 (Ala.1988), citing Fernandez v. Baruch, 52 N.J. 127, 244 A.2d 109 (1968) (explaining that a physician does not have a duty to take measures to prevent a patient from committing suicide if the patient’s suicide was not reasonably foreseeable under generally accepted medical standards). Accordingly, foreseeability of harm is relevant to a physician’s standard of care, and a correct, general statement of the law regarding the standard of care or the breach of that standard includes the element of foreseeability.
[265]*265{¶ 29} Because foreseeability of harm is relevant to the determination of the scope of a physician’s duty in a medical-malpractice action, giving a foreseeability instruction in such an action is not manifestly incorrect, and the appellate court’s conclusion to the contrary was erroneous.
{¶ 30} Having clarified the general question of law, we next consider the instruction in light of the facts of the case.
Factual Propriety of Including a Foreseeability Instruction
{¶ 31} Foreseeability of harm usually does not enter into the analysis of medical negligence, not because it is legally -irrelevant, but because it is almost always factually undisputed that a risk of harm was foreseeable and that the medical professional was aware that the chosen course of treatment involved a risk of harm. See, e.g., Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237, 2005-Ohio-4787, 834 N.E.2d 323, ¶ 30-31 (whether postsurgieal infection was a foreseeable risk of performing an invasive surgery was not disputed); Hubach v. Cole, 133 Ohio St. 137, 139, 12 N.E.2d 283 (1938) (risk of burns from radium treatment was foreseen). Instead, in the more common line of cases, the pertinent question is whether the medical professional acted unreasonably in the face of those risks. See, e.g., Branch v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 134 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-5345, 980 N.E.2d 970, ¶ 27 (relevant inquiry was whether “different planning and procedures could have prevented the stroke,” not whether brain injury was foreseeable); Beard (relevant dispute was whether the physician reasonably assessed the likelihood and magnitude of a patient’s risk of infection, not whether infection was foreseeable); Hier v. Stites, 91 Ohio St. 127, 128, 110 N.E. 252 (1914) (relevant inquiry was only whether failure to sterilize equipment and cleanse wound breached the physician’s standard of care, not whether infection was foreseeable). Such is the case here.
{¶ 32} In this case, the treating physicians were not accused of failing to foresee that the negative effects of the progression of shock and the strain on a patient’s cardiovascular system were risks of delaying the intubation of a patient in shock. They admitted to having knowledge of these risks and weighing them against the risks and benefits of performing other precautionary measures prior to intubation. Thus, the parties did not dispute that the treating physicians foresaw that there was a risk of harm associated with their choice of emergency treatment. Instead, they debated whether the physicians reasonably appreciated the magnitude of the risk and properly weighed it in their risk-benefit analyses. Accordingly, the question remaining was whether the physicians’ chosen course of treatment was reasonable in light of the risks.
{¶ 33} We have long held that a trial court should limit its instructions to the jury to matters actually raised in the pleadings and in the evidence at trial. Becker v. Lake Cty. Mem. Hosp. W., 53 Ohio St.3d 202, 208, 560 N.E.2d 165 [266]*266(1990), citing Hood v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 166 Ohio St. 529, 144 N.E.2d 104 (1957), paragraph four of the syllabus. “Abstract rules of law or general propositions, even though correct, ought not to be given unless specifically applicable to facts in issue.” State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981). Even if an instruction is related to facts in evidence, an instruction that draws attention to irrelevant issues may be objectionable. Masci v. Keller, 18 Ohio St.2d 67, 247 N.E.2d 457 (1969) (instructing a jury that it may find in favor of the “defendants,” including the claimant’s employer, was incorrect because it was irrelevant to the only question in the case, which was whether the claimant was entitled to participate in the State Insurance Fund).
{¶ 34} There was no question for the jury in this case regarding the foreseeability of the risk of harm because the medical professionals were aware that their chosen chronology of treatment of Seth’s shock carried with it some risk of harm. Thus, the instruction regarding the foreseeability of harm was not necessary in light of the facts and arguments presented in this case. We next consider the potential effect of the unnecessary instruction on the Cromers’ case.
Propriety of Jury Instructions as a Whole
{¶ 35} An unnecessary, ambiguous, or even affirmatively erroneous portion of a jury charge does not inevitably constitute reversible error. See Becker, 53 Ohio St.3d at 208, 560 N.E.2d 165. If there is no inherent prejudice in the inclusion of a particular jury instruction, prejudice must be affirmatively shown on the face of the record, and it cannot be presumed. Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 85 Ohio St.3d 457, 461-462, 709 N.E.2d 162 (1999). “In examining errors in a jury instruction, a reviewing court must consider the jury charge as a whole and ‘must determine whether the jury charge probably misled the jury in a matter materially affecting the complaining party’s substantial rights.’ ” Kokitka v. Ford Motor Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 89, 93, 652 N.E.2d 671 (1995), quoting Becker at 208. If the complete set of instructions by the trial court otherwise fairly and correctly lays out the relevant law, and if it is apparent in the context of the complete instructions that an isolated error did not prejudice a party’s substantial rights, reversal on the error is not warranted. Centrello v. Basky, 164 Ohio St. 41, 128 N.E.2d 80 (1955), paragraph eight of the syllabus.
{¶ 36} The general rule is that an erroneous instruction does not necessarily mislead a jury. See Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co., 18 Ohio St.3d 268, 274-275, 480 N.E.2d 794 (1985). The same rule applies in a medical-malpractice case. See Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 139 Ohio St.3d 238, 2014-Ohio-1913, 11 N.E.3d 243, ¶ 33.1
[267]*267{¶ 37} In Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that eight rather than nine members of a 12-member jury needed to agree upon the verdict. Although nine jurors signed the verdict form, one of those nine later averred that he had not agreed with the verdict but had signed the form because he believed that his vote was purely academic. Id. at 273-274. We rejected the argument that the trial court’s erroneous instruction necessarily rendered the verdict invalid. Instead, we held that the question was whether the instruction itself was so misleading that it could have directly induced an erroneous verdict. Id. at 274, quoting Long v. Cassiero, 105 Ohio St. 123, 136 N.E. 888 (1922). We noted that the trial court had instructed the jurors to sign the form only if they concurred in the verdict and had not indicated that any juror should sign the form “(a) after eight other jurors had signed it, or (b) when it became ‘academic’ for him to refuse to do so.” Id. at 275. Because the inaccurate instruction could not have induced the ninth juror to vote against his true intent, there was no showing of prejudicial error. Id.
{¶ 38} In Hayward, the trial court provided an erroneous instruction regarding remote causation in a medical-negligence action, but the only alleged evidence of juror confusion was the fact that the jury had completed separate interrogatories finding no causation despite having already found that the defendant was not negligent. Id. at ¶ 22. Because the interrogatories were consistent with the general verdict, and because the erroneous instruction did not induce the jurors to complete the mooted interrogatories, we held that no prejudice was shown from the instruction itself. Id. at ¶ 32. Accordingly, in order to demonstrate reversible error, there must be a connection between the allegedly erroneous jury instruction and the alleged evidence of juror confusion.
{¶ 39} In the present case, the jury instruction found to constitute reversible error by the court of appeals stated as follows:
In deciding whether ordinary care was used, you will consider whether the defendant should have foreseen under the attending circumstances that [268]*268the natural and probable result of an act or failure to act would cause Seth Cromer’s death.
The test for foreseeability is not whether the defendant should have foreseen the death of Seth Cromer precisely as it happened. The test is whether under all the circumstances a reasonably cautious, careful, prudent person would have anticipated that death was likely to result to someone from the act or failure to act.
If the defendant by the use of ordinary care should have foreseen the death and should not have acted, or if they did act, should have taken precautions to avoid the result, the performance of the act or the failure to act to take such precautions is negligence.
This foreseeability instruction was drawn from Ohio Jury Instructions, CY Section 401.07(1) (Rev. May 12, 2012), which states:
1. General. In deciding whether (reasonable) (ordinary) care was used, you will consider whether the defendant(s) should have foreseen under the circumstances that the likely result of an act or failure to act would cause (injuries) (damages).
2. Test. The test for foreseeability is not whether a person should have foreseen the (injuries) (damages) exactly as it happened to the specific (person) (property). The test is whether under the circumstances a reasonably careful person would have anticipated that an act or failure to act would likely (result in) (cause) (injuries) (damages).
{¶ 40} We note that the issue of foreseeability of harm, if factually relevant in a medical-negligence case, would have to be considered in the context of “recognized standards * * * provided through expert testimony,” just like any other element of a medical-negligence claim. Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d at 131— 132, 346 N.E.2d 673. When assessing the actions of a medical professional, it would be inappropriate to view foreseeability in terms of a layperson’s “ordinary” standard of care. For that reason, it would be preferable for OJI to include in its medical-specific jury instructions a foreseeability instruction that incorporates the specific standard of the reasonable medical professional rather than the reasonable person. However, because the instructions in the present case repeatedly defined “reasonable” and “ordinary care” solely in the context of a “reasonable hospital,” a “reasonably careful physician,” and “hospitals, physicians and/or nurses of ordinary skill, care and diligence,” the jury instructions regarding the [269]*269applicable standard of care, as a whole, were not misleading. See Youngstown Mun. Ry. Co. v. Mikula, 131 Ohio St. 17, 20,1 N.E.2d 135 (1936).
{¶ 41} Regardless, the appellate court’s determination of error in this case was based not on particular word choices in the trial court’s foreseeability instruction, but on the inclusion of the concept of foreseeability, as a whole, in jury instructions on medical negligence. And by requiring reversal based on the trial court’s mere inclusion of a foreseeability instruction, the appellate court erroneously presumed that the error was prejudicial2 instead of determining whether there was a clear indication on the face of the record that the instruction prejudiced the Cromers’ substantial rights. Wagner, 85 Ohio St.3d at 461-462, 709 N.E.2d 162.
{¶ 42} The only manifestation of the jury being misled by the foreseeability instruction that was identified to the appellate court was that the jurors completed the interrogatory regarding proximate cause instead of stopping after finding that negligence had not occurred. But similarly to Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. and Hayward, we see no connection between an unnecessary foreseeability instruction and the jurors’ decision to complete the interrogatory for the mooted issue of causation after completing the interrogatory for the primary issue of negligence. Thus, some other showing from the record would be necessary to establish that the instruction led the jury to an erroneous result in this case. However, none was made.
{¶ 43} The jury’s answers to the negligence and the causation interrogatories, both in favor of the defense, were not inconsistent with one another, nor were they inconsistent with the general verdict. Further, in contrast to the manifestly erroneous instruction in Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. and the factually unsupported instruction in Hayward, the foreseeability instruction in this case was drawn from the actual facts presented, but was mere surplusage. Accordingly, the record in this case does not establish that the unneeded jury instruction on foreseeability prejudiced the Cromers’ substantial rights, and the appellate court’s reversal was not justified.
Conclusion
{¶ 44} In the context of an established physician-patient relationship, consideration of foreseeability is unnecessary to the determination whether the patient is someone to whom the physician owes a duty of care. But the issue of foreseeability is relevant to a physician’s standard of care in treating a particular patient, and separate consideration of the foreseeability of harm is appropriate if there is a question for the jury regarding whether the physician knew or should have [270]*270known that a chosen course of treatment involved a risk of harm. However, in most medical-negligence cases, including this one, the foreseeability of a risk of harm related to the medical treatment is conceded, leaving no need for a jury instruction on foreseeability.
{¶ 45} Further, a jury instruction on a general rule of law, even if correct, should not be given if the instruction is not applicable to the evidence presented. But the inclusion of an unnecessary instruction does not constitute reversible error absent a showing of material prejudice. Because such a showing was not provided in this case, the appellate court should not have disturbed the jury’s verdict.
{¶ 46} We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. We remand the cause to the appellate court to consider the Cromers’ assignments of error regarding the manifest weight of the evidence and the failure to grant the motion for a new trial, which the appellate court previously held were mooted by its disposition.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., concur in judgment only.
Pfeifer, J., dissents.