Posted: March 12, 2024
Civil Jury Instructions – Elements of a Medical Negligence Claim; Standard of Care Defined – Comment Period Expires April 12, 2024
The References and/or Committee Notes to the following Model Utah Civil Jury Instructions have been updated and published:
CV301B Elements of a medical negligence claim.
CV301C “Standard of care” defined.
Please reference the instruction(s) in your comments. Although the comment period runs through April 12, 2024, the instructions are ready for use. The Model Civil Jury Instructions Committee will consider all comments made during the comment period and may revise the instructions as appropriate. To view all MUJI Civil instructions please visit the MUJI website – here.
The Judicial Council also encourages judges and practitioners to continuously share their experiences using any of the published instructions with the Model Civil Jury Instructions Committee. To view the Committee’s work please visit the MUJI Civil Committee website – here.
How are jurors supposed to reconcile the statement in CV301C that they can’t use a standard based on their own experience with CV119? (“You are to consider only the evidence in the case, but you are not expected to abandon your common sense. You are permitted to interpret the evidence in light of your experience.”).
Relatedly, It’s confusing that in the very next sentence they’re told that they have to decide, based on the evidence, what the standard of care is. I could see a jury believing it is being instructed to pick a side in an expert battle. But then back in CV119 they’re told to rely on their own experience and common sense, which might lead to the conclusion that all the experts are hired guns and they don’t believe any of them. That certainly seems to be an option from the last sentence of CV301C.
I support the new references and comments to CV301B and CV301C. They reflect the latest decisional law in the area, clarify the appropriate instructions for use, and address the growing trend seeking to insert new and unnecessary elements into the jury instructions. Good job Committee!
I support the proposed rule changes. These changes are consistent with Meeks v. Peng and clarify what is actually required to prove a medical negligence claim.
I fully support the proposed changes. I am a medical malpractice attorney and have extensive experience in arguing the relevant jury instructions. The recent Birt decision properly found that, when read as a whole, the current MUJI instructions accurately reflect the law. That same logic applies to all of the instructions, including the instruction on what the standard of care is. The instructions clearly lay out the burden of proof. They then approach the elements and underlying requirements of the cause of action in a straightforward and understandable manner. When it comes to instructions, simpler is almost always better. Again, I support the comment referencing the Birt case and explaining the reasoning behind leaving the instruction language as it has been for years.