Kyle v. Fok

247 N.E.2d 457, 18 Ohio St. 2d 70, 47 Ohio Op. 2d 191, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 370
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 7, 1969·No. No. 68-596·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for wrongful death as the result of alleged medical malpractice, the trial court, in special instructions before argument, employed the phrase “guilty of malpractice.” The motion to certify was allowed because a majority of the court is of the opinion that such use of the word “guilty” in civil damage actions is reversible error. Cf. Bahm v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rd. Co. (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 192; Reep v. Greyhound Corp. (1960), 171 Ohio St. 199.

In considering the cause upon the record before us, however, we are compelled to find that no objection to the prejudicial term was made. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently allowed.

Appeal dismissed.

Matthias, Leach, Herbert and Duncan, JJ., concur. Tapt, C. J., and O’Neill, J., concur in the judgment. Leach, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Schneider, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kyle v. Fok, 247 N.E.2d 457, 18 Ohio St. 2d 70, 47 Ohio Op. 2d 191, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 370 (Ohio 1969).

247 N.E.2d 457 (Kyle v. Fok) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vogler v. Henry Ford Hospital
442 N.W.2d 644 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
Suchy v. Moore
279 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1972)