Opinion
Case No. 1:01CV12 DAK
May 27, 2003
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial. The court has carefully considered the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Order.
Plaintiff argues that the court erred in declining to give Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instruction 7. The court disagrees and finds that the instruction given by the court was the proper statement of the law. Further, even if the court did err in failing to give Plaintiff's proposed instruction, such error was harmless because Plaintiff was allowed to argue his theory that Defendant had a duty to "search out and cure defects" on its property.
Plaintiff argues that defense counsel violated the Court's Order regarding Plaintiff's receipt of workers' compensation benefits. The court finds that even if defense counsel's questioning violated the spirit of the Court's Order, it was harmless error because the jury decided this case based upon liability and not on damages.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that defense counsel elicited inappropriate testimony and made inappropriate argument. Plaintiff's counsel, however, did not object or make a motion to strike after the allegedly inappropriate conduct, and thus, those objections have been waived. Further, the court finds that even if the question or comment were inappropriate — a question that this court need not decide — they do not justify a new trial.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial [docket entry #45] is DENIED.