Estate of Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.

Whether (1) the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on pain and suffering damages; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ('JNOV') on administrative negligence under N.C.G.S. 90-21.11(2)(b); (3) defendant was entitled to a new trial because it was prejudiced by the alleged intertwining of plaintiff's medical negligence and administrative negligence during trial; and (4) the trial court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on contributory negligence.

Files

These files may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. If you are having trouble accessing these files, you may request an accessible format.

Summary

Whether (1) the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on pain and suffering damages; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ('JNOV') on administrative negligence under N.C.G.S. 90-21.11(2)(b); (3) defendant was entitled to a new trial because it was prejudiced by the alleged intertwining of plaintiff's medical negligence and administrative negligence during trial; and (4) the trial court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on contributory negligence.