McKinney v. Heisel

OPINION

LAMBERT, Justice.

The issue presented is whether it was error to define the word “permanent” in jury instructions which required an affirmative or negative finding of “permanent injury within reasonable medical probability.” KRS 304.39-060(2)(b). In the event we determine that the giving of such a definitional instruction was error, we must also say whether the error was prejudicial requiring a new trial.

Appellant brought this personal injury action against appellee for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Prior to trial appellee admitted liability and the only issue for…