based on section 6-1012. See Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 145, 937 P.2d 1212, 1219 (1997) (“We have consistently upheld instructions based upon, § 6-1012 as correctly explaining to the jury the applicable standard of care.”); Hilden v. Ball, 117 Idaho 314, 316, 787 P.2d 1122, 1124 (1989) (concluding that the district court did not err in its jury instructions where they were based on the local standard of care as enunciated in section 6-1012); Robertson v. Richards, 115 Idaho 628, 633, 769 P.2d 505, 510 (1987) (“I.C. § 6-1012 sets the applicable standard of care in Idaho medical malpractice cases, and the district court’s instructions correctly apprise the jury that the defendant was required to meet that standard.”); Grimes v. Green, 113 Idaho 519, 520, 746 P.2d 978, 979 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Silk Touch argues that its proposed jury
holding that jury instructions were not erroneous when they substantially conformed to section 61012 holding that the plaintiffs hourly rates were reasonable because they conformed to the updated laffey matrix and were customary for similar cases holding that identical jury instructions regarding nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were not erroneous holding that written instructions did not cure erroneous oral instruction holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error