Opinion ID: 1058614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Verdict Form and Damages Instructions

Text: On appeal, Banks argues that the trial court erred by using a verdict form that lumped all of the defendants together for the compensatory damage claim (other than statutory conspiracy) and in not providing the jury with an opportunity to differentiate between the damages recoverable against the various defendants. Instead, the verdict form lumped Banks with the other defendants for claims for which she was not sued. Banks also argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of damages which Mario may be entitled to recover. There was no objection made concerning the verdict form; however, Banks urges the Court to apply the plain error doctrine and reverse the trial court because there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that is substantial and (4) . . . seriously affects the fairness, integrity and public reputation of the judicial system. Of course, we consider such challenges under the ends of justice exception found in Rule 5:25. As previously mentioned, Banks did not object to the verdict form. Additionally, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the elements of damages Mario was entitled to recover in the absence of a request from Banks to do so. Because Banks raises these arguments for the first time on appeal and we find no reason to invoke the ends of justice exception, the arguments are waived. Rule 5:25.