Opinion ID: 2570625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Cooks' objection to the proposed instruction

Text: As an initial matter, Sunrise contends that, on appeal, the Cooks have waived their challenge to the jury instruction because a proper objection to the jury instruction was not raised in the district court. The Cooks assert that their objection sufficiently preserved the issue for our review because their counsel's statement that the proffered language was not an appropriate [ Gunlock ] instruction put the district court on notice that Sunrise's language should have been reviewed further. With regard to the proper manner of objecting to a proposed jury instruction so that the challenge is preserved for appellate review, NRCP 51(c) provides that a party objecting to an instruction, or the failure to give an instruction, must distinctly state the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection. Objections are sufficient when they serve NRCP 51(c)'s purpose to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the potential error by focusing the court's attention on the alleged error. [3] This does not require that counsel give a discourse on the applicable law. [4] Indeed, we have held that providing the district court with a citation to relevant legal authority in support of the objection satisfies the requirements of NRCP 51(c). [5] A general objection, however, is not sufficient to preserve the issue on appeal, unless there is plain error. [6] In this case, at the hearing to settle the jury instruction, the Cooks objected to Sunrise's proposed instruction because it was not a proper mere happening instruction under this court's 1962 opinion, Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, [7] The Cooks' counsel stated twice that the proffered language was not a proper Gunlock instruction. Moreover, the Cooks' objection, together with Sunrise's argument, informed the district court what the main issue for the jury's determination was who was responsible for the loss of Mrs. Cook's limb. Thus, the district court was on notice that the language of Sunrise's proposed jury instruction should have been reviewed further, and the court was provided with a citation to pertinent authority. The need for further review should have been particularly evident, because Gunlock is a Nevada Supreme Court case and, as Sunrise acknowledged to the district court, its given instruction was based on a South Dakota Supreme Court case. [8] Sunrise's argument that the Cooks' objection was not adequately preserved because they were required to specifically state to the district court the exact language that should have been added is unpersuasive, since under NRCP 51(c), the Cooks' objection needed only to focus the district court's attention on the alleged error, which it did. Accordingly, the Cooks' objection to giving the mere happening instruction was properly preserved for appeal.