Monday, April 24, 2017

Sticks and stones and weakened bones...

Beds begins an unpublished opinion, here, like this
This lawsuit over the frailty of bones ends up demonstrating the frailty of our dispute-resolving powers. We are asked to reverse a judgment because one side believes the trial judge acted unreasonably on three occasions, thus abusing his discretion. But we end up marveling at the complexity of the issues confronted here by court and counsel, and unable to say any of them acted unreasonably.
Here's a nice bit that's especially nicely phrased:
Image result for a bridge too farA basic rule of appellate procedure is that since trial court judgments are presumed correct, an appellant must present an adequate record showing some prejudicial trial court error. Beyond that, there is another basic rule that an appellant must raise an issue in the trial court before it will be considered on appeal. The bedrock of both rules is that it is unfair to both trial judge and the adversary party to make an argument to the Court of Appeal based on some “‘curable defect’” that could have been corrected at the time, but wasn’t, because the aggrieved party kept “‘mum’” about it. 
"Asking us on this record to find the trial judge made an unreasonable decision in giving an instruction both sides had agreed upon is a bridge too far."