Opinion ID: 2461647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The objection

Text: The Crafts contend the objection made to the instructions was not sufficiently specific and that it was only an objection stating there was insufficient evidence to show the car was anything other than a new car as it had been represented. The objection was not only specific, it was right on the point which is being argued on appeal. Although counsel for Thomas threw in a remark about the insufficiency of the evidence to prove deceit, that did not detract from his making the exact point that the jurors should not be allowed to award both restitution and damages for deceit, as that would amount to a double recovery. If the instructions, taken together, were erroneous because they failed to tell the jury that restitution and damages could only be awarded in the alternative, the objection was sufficient to inform the trial court of the problem. An objection to an erroneous instruction is sufficient if it is timely and states a valid reason. Ark.R. Civ.P. 51; Tandy Corp. v. Bone, 283 Ark. 399, 678 S.W.2d 312 (1984). The rule requires a proffer of an instruction only when the objection is to the failure to instruct on any issue. While it might be argued that the court had failed to instruct on the issue of the alternative nature of the remedies available to the jury, and thus Thomas should have proffered an instruction on that point, we do not think that is the intent of the rule. We conclude that the issues contemplated by the rule were, in this case, the ones on which instructions had been given, i.e., the Crafts' entitlement to revocation of acceptance and recovery for deceit.