Opinion ID: 2186830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instructions on Safe Premises and Duty to Warn.

Text: Trial court's Instruction 8 informed the jury that Gilbert as general contractor had a duty to use ordinary care to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work and that a failure in this regard would be negligence. Gilbert on appeal claims reversible error was committed by the failure of the Court to instruct that an obligation to keep the premises reasonably safe is also satisfied by giving warning of any latent dangers. Plaintiff asserts this alleged error was not preserved by appropriate objections below. The Court of Appeals held the error was preserved and that trial court erred in failing to instruct on the duty to warn. Gilbert's exceptions to Instruction 8 should have been sufficiently clear to alert trial court to the contention now advanced in order to provide an opportunity to correct the alleged error before the case went to the jury. Lockhard v. Carson, 287 N.W.2d 871, 873 (Iowa 1980); Wambsgans v. Price, 274 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Iowa 1979). However, Gilbert's exceptions to this instruction were too generalized ( e. g., no sufficient evidence, imposes greater burden than is provided by law, misstatement of the law) to meet the standard required to preserve the asserted error. Although the Court of Appeals should not have reversed on this ground, the case, nevertheless, must go back for retrial because we cannot assume the plaintiff's verdict did not rest on the ground discussed in division I. Upon retrial, instructions relating to Gilbert's duties to protect plaintiff as a business invitee should follow the principles articulated in Mundy v. Warren, 268 N.W.2d 213, 215-18 (Iowa 1978); Greenwell v. Meredith Corp., 189 N.W.2d 901, 905-06 (Iowa 1971); and Giarratano, 259 Iowa at 1308-09, 147 N.W.2d at 834.