Cited by

[¶35] The response to a jury question is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

The trial court always has authority to reconsider and correct prior orders until the entry of final judgment, even those orders issued by different trial judges.

“The response to a jury question is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 250 (2009) (quotation omitted).

Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 249 (2009) (“The power to reconsider an issue once decided remains in the court until final judgment or decree.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 249 (2009); Redlon Co. v. Corporation, 91 N.H. 502, 503, 505-06 (1941).

Expert witness testimony is required to establish a prima facie medical negligence case.

Trull concerned “the scope of liability of a manufacturer to the situations in which the construction or design of its product has caused separate or enhanced injuries in the course of 1 To the extent that Fireworks of Tilton argues that Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236 (2009), stands for the proposition that RSA 507:7-e applies to all actions — and not just actions in tort — it is mistaken.

Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1999) (differential etiology reached “by determining the possible causes for the patient’s symptoms and then eliminating each of these potential causes until reaching one that cannot be ruled out or determining which of those that cannot be excluded is the most likely”); see also Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 247-48 (2009) (recognizing differential etiology as reliable methodology in medical diagnosis and causation cases).

As to the third argument, we note that, even if the final order contravened a pretrial ruling, any pretrial ruling was necessarily interlocutory, see Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 249 (2009), and the record does not reflect that plaintiffs ever brought the alleged error to the trial court’s attention in a motion for reconsideration, see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 678-79 (2002) (holding that challenge to trial court’s use of a standard in final order that was diffe

Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 249 (2009) (citing Redlon Co. v. Corporation, 91 N.H. 502, 506 (1941)).

Akwa Vista v. NRT, 160 N.H. 594, 600 (2010); Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 256 (2009).

“[A] civil defendant who seeks to deflect fault by apportionment to non-litigants is raising something in the nature of an 40 affirmative defense.” Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 256 (2009).

However, “[t]he trial court functions only as a gatekeeper, ensuring a methodology’s reliability before permitting the fact-finder to determine the weight and credibility to be afforded an expert’s testimony.” Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 247 (2009).

Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 253, 965 A.2d 1040 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 253 (2009) (quotation omitted).

To the extent that the defendants raise additional arguments regarding the foundation for Sturke’s testimony and the bases for his conclusions, we interpret these arguments as issues that “go to the weight to be accorded the opinion evidence, and not its admissibility.” Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 248 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted).

The evidence to support this causal link must be “sufficient to warrant a reasonable juror’s conclusion that the causal link between the negligence and the injury probably existed.” Id.; see also Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 246 (2009); RSA 507-E:2, 1(c).

Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236, 245 (2009) (citations and quotations omitted).

The trial court has the power to reconsider an issue until final judgment or decree.