and are complications that may occur without anyone’s negligence and that Chesser’s injuries could have been caused by his preexisting conditions. Accord Dillard, 157 S.W.3d at 432 (explaining that instead of examining whether evidence existed to support submission o cause the bad result instruction sufficiently informed the jury that it could not find Appellees negligent solely based on a bad result suffered by Chesser from the PEG tube or from his pre-existing conditions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to also submit an unavoidable accident instruction. See Dillard, 157 S.W.3d at 434 (explaining that redundancy created by submission of multiple inferential rebuttal instructions is contrary to the spirit of broad-form submission); V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d at 341 (<HOLDING>). The bad result instruction submitted in this
recognizing that trial court possesses considera ble discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions recognizing that trial courts have great latitude and considerable discretion to determine necessary and proper jury instructions holding that jury instructions must allow the jury to determine the issues presented intelligently 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