context: In explaining the law, the trial court should avoid instructions that are reasonably capable of confusing or misleading the jury. Although the "mere error of judgment" instruction may be a correct statement of the law, a growing number of courts have criticized similar instructions in recent years.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 727 P.2d 669, 673
citation_a.parenthetical: warning "error of judgment" instruction should be given in limited circumstances with caution
citation_a.sentence: But see Watson v. Hockett, 727 P.2d 669, 673 (Wash. 1986) (warning “error of judgment” instruction should be given in limited circumstances with caution).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 465 A.2d 294, 303
citation_b.parenthetical: noting "bona fide error in Judgment" instruction confusing because it implies only an error in judgment made in bad faith actionable
citation_b.sentence: See Rogers, 772 P.2d at 931 (holding word “error” when used with “exercise of judgment” suggests substandard conduct permissible); DiFranco v. Klein, 657 A.2d 145, 148-49 (R.I. 1995) (holding “good faith” and “honest error in judgment” instructions erroneously imply only bad-faith and dishonest deviations actionable); Deyo v. Kinley, 565 A.2d 1286, 1292-93 (Vt. 1989) (noting “error in judgment” language is basically ambiguous and subjective); Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass’n, 465 A.2d 294, 303 (Conn. 1983) (noting “bona fide error in Judgment” instruction confusing because it implies only an error in judgment made in bad faith actionable); Ouellette by Ouellette v. Subak, 391 N.W.2d 810, 816 (Minn. 1986) (rejecting “honest error in judgment” instruction as inappropriately imposing subjective language when defining standard of care); Riggins v. Mauriello, 603 A.2d 827, 830-31 (Del. 1992) (holding “mere error of judgment” instruction permits jury to incorrectly conclude physician may not be liable even if negligent); Parodi v. Washoe Medical Ctr., 892 P.2d 588, 591 (Nev. 1995) (noting “error-in-judgment” instructions may improperly focus jury on subjective intentions rather than objective standard of care); Hirahara v. Tanaka, 959 P.2d 830, 834-35 (Haw. 1998) (rejecting use of “error in judgment” because language inadequately explains law).