Opinion ID: 2286987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury's Verdict as to Compensatory Damages

Text: The City states, The trial court erred in upholding the jury verdict on damages because the evidence did not support the compensatory damages awarded in that [Howard] was not entitled to front pay or back pay. This point falls short of the requirements of Rule 84.04(d)(1). Review is gratis only to the extent the Court can understand the City's argument. The City appears to argue this point in two ways. First, it asserts that the verdict is not supported by the evidence because Howard linked emotional distress to lost wages in her closing argument, and, second, it asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant remittitur. To the extent the City complains of the manner in which Howard's counsel argued the evidence, no objection was made at that time. Failure to properly object to closing argument at the time it is made to a jury results in a waiver of any right to complain of the argument on appeal, even if the point is preserved in an after trial motion ... because if the objection is not timely, the trial court has no opportunity to take corrective action at the time the remarks were made. State v. Hall, 319 S.W.3d 519, 523 (Mo. App.2010); see also Pollard v. Whitener, 965 S.W.2d 281, 288 (Mo.App.1998) (It is a settled principle of Missouri trial practice that to preserve trial court error it is necessary to give the trial court the first opportunity to correct the error, without the delay, expense, and hardship of appeal and retrial.). To the extent the City complains that the trial court did not order remittitur, or that this Court should do so in its place, that argument simply is not preserved in the point relied on or adequately developed and supported in the City's brief. An appellate court should exercise its power to interfere with the judgment of the jury and trial court with hesitation and only when the verdict is manifestly unjust. Alcorn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 50 S.W.3d 226, 249-50 (Mo. banc 2001). The City has not established that the verdict was manifestly unjust.