“Here, we agree with the estate that instruction sixteen as presented to the jury misled the jury by its phrasing. By omitting the operative ‘if/then; language from the proposed instruction, the instruction transformed from an instruction asking the jury to decide whether an alternative approved method of treatment was used (which, if so found, would preclude a negligence finding) to an instruction directing the jury that Cloos did employ an alternative approved method of treatment and was not negligent,” Judge Paul B. Ahlers wrote.
‘Far-Reaching Implications’: Hague Service Convention Bans Email Process Service to Chinese Defendants, Seventh Circuit Rules
“It … means that many thousands of cases were wrongly