surgery and was hospitalized at Sioux Valley Hospital. Sioux Valley Hospital is not a party to this action. The plaintiff has made no claim against Sioux Valley Hospital as a result of the injuries and damages he claims to have suffered in this matter. [¶ 33.] Accordingly, we find no error in defense counsel’s question to plaintiffs expert, Dr. Balliro, as to the potential liability of Sioux Valley Hospital. We thus conclude there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying plaintiffs motion for mistrial related to that line of questioning. [¶ 34.] 3. Whether the trial court erred by allowing defense counsel to question plaintiffs witness about another lawsuit against Dr. O’Brien after the trial court had granted Dr. O’Brien’s motion in limine prohibiting the part 989) (<HOLDING>); see also Hepper v. Triple U Enterprises Inc.,
holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue holding that the plaintiff waived his right to argue an issue on appeal by failing to object below thereby denying the trial court the opportunity to correct its mistakes holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial holding appellant waives argument not raised below by failing to argue for plain error and its application on appeal