evidence supported instruction in Ohio

2017Id. at *18, quoting Hamilton v. Keller , 11 Ohio App.2d 121 , 127-128, 229 N.E.2d 63 (3rd Dist. 1967). {¶ 40} Here, the trial court provided an "egg shell plaintiff" instruction, over Chrysler's objection, instructing the jury that "an employee's particular predispositions, susceptibilities, and sensitivities are irrelevant to the determination of whether the employee is entitled to participate in the Workers' Compensation Benefits." Although the propriety of the "eggshell plaintiff" instruction in this particular case is not before us, we note that, assuming that the evidence supported that i

2017Id. at *18, quoting Hamilton v. Keller , 11 Ohio App.2d 121 , 127-128, 229 N.E.2d 63 (3rd Dist. 1967). {¶ 40} Here, the trial court provided an "egg shell plaintiff" instruction, over Chrysler's objection, instructing the jury that "an employee's particular predispositions, susceptibilities, and sensitivities are irrelevant to the determination of whether the employee is entitled to participate in the Workers' Compensation Benefits." Although the propriety of the "eggshell plaintiff" instruction in this particular case is not before us, we note that, assuming that the evidence supported that i

2008Id. {¶ 8} Hudson argues that the weight of the evidence supported his claim of self-defense.

2008Rather, "[t]he trier of fact is in the best position to take into account inconsistencies, along with the witnesses' manner and demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses' testimony is credible." Id. {¶ 37} Vinson also argues that the weight of the evidence supported her claim for self-defense.

2006State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 231 . {¶ 20} Paul, Thelma and Doreen Ebinger all testified as to the events of March 12, 2004, and identified appellant as the person who broke into their home.

2006State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169 , syllabus. {¶ 18} We note that appellant does not present specific arguments as to each of the separate charges against him, but claims in general that the evidence supported his defense that he went to the victims' home to discuss money Paul Ebinger owed him for guns he said he sold Paul nearly 20 years ago. {¶ 19} It is primarily for the factfinder to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, because the factfinder has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and observe their demeanor.

2005Lee at ¶ 58 ; Owens, supra. See, also, State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 120 , syllabus. {¶ 52} Because we find that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that Dunham and Neeley bore the burden of proof with regard to their affirmative defense, because the evidence supported an instruction on the forfeiture specification, and because Dunham and Neeley did not object to the procedural error relating to the forfeiture specification, we overrule the fifth assignment of error.

2004Credit Assn. v. Patrick (1942), 140 Ohio St. 521 , 532-33 ). {¶ 51} The court's instructions here did not address this duty of inquiry although the evidence supported such an instruction. 2 "`The fundamental rule for determining the scope of the instruction to be given by the court is that it should be adapted to and embrace all issues made by the pleadings and the evidence.'" Murphy v. Carrolton Mfg.

2004Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 585 , 591 n. 3 (quoting 89 Ohio Jur.3d (1989) 354-55, Trial, section 289).

2001State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d at 62 , 43 O.O.2d at 123 , 236 N.E.2d at 549 . {¶ 58} Moreover, we find that this evidence supported the defense theory of the case and that any error was harmless.

2001State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d at 62 , 43 O.O.2d at 123 , 236 N.E.2d at 549 . {¶ 58} Moreover, we find that this evidence supported the defense theory of the case and that any error was harmless.

2001Hammerschmidt v. Mignogna (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 276 , 280 ; Jaworowski v. Med.

1990The Ohio Supreme Court first recognized a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Paugh v. Hanks (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 72 , in which it held that recovery may be had where serious emotional distress results from the negligence of another.