Marriott argues that if the trial court did err, then any error was harmless as to plaintiff Malone, whom the jury found to be fifty-one percent negligent. This argument corresponds with Burwell v. Am. Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 574 N.E.2d 1094, in which this court held: "* * * Absent concurrent compensatory damages, punitive damages are inappropriate and do not constitute a cause of action in and of themselves.
In light of the verdict, the failure to submit the possibility of punitive damages and attorney's fees to the jury was harmless error. Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 78; Civ. R. 61. Giannini-Baur's
Instructions that, in their totality, are sufficiently clear to permit the jury to understand the relevant law will not be the cause of a reversal upon appeal. Burwell v. Am. Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 79, 574 N.E.2d 1094. Whether the jury instructions correctly state the law is a question of law, which we review de novo.
Instructions which, in their totality, are sufficiently clear to permit the jury to understand the relevant law will not be the cause of a reversal on appeal. Margroff at 177; Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 79; Yeager at 55. Whether the jury instructions correctly state the law is a question of law which we review de novo.
The ability of a trial court to entertain motions in limine lies within the court's inherent power and discretion to control the proceedings before it. Rich v. Quinn (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 102, 105, 13 OBR 119, 122-123, 468 N.E.2d 365, 369-370. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's ruling with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. LeForge v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 692, 701, 612 N.E.2d 1318, 1324; Burwell v. Am. Edwards Laboratories (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 83, 574 N.E.2d 1094, 1100. In this case, the trial court granted appellee's motion in limine to exclude evidence of profits made by appellee from the sale of the flap STC to third parties.
A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed unless there is a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. Burwell v. American Edwards Labs. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 73, 83-84, 574 N.E.2d 1094, 1100-1101. Additionally, "[a] trial court has discretion to determine whether contested events or objects are sufficiently similar to other events or objects that evidence about the other events or objects has probative value. * * *" Babb v. Ford Motor Co. (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 174, 535 N.E.2d 676, paragraph two of the syllabus.
I am not sure how far a federal agency's notice regarding reporting of adverse events takes us on the issue of whether the provision of such valves is a product or a service for the purpose of applying product liability law. The plaintiffs refer in their brief to Burwell v. American Edwards Laboratory, 574 N.E.2d 1094 (Ohio App. 1989). This case, however, involves a porcine (pig) valve, and, though it was treated as a product in this case, there apparently was never an issue raised as to whether it should be a product or a service.