Opinion ID: 1815404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Jury Question

Text: Bonnie claims that the special jury question was too limited because it was restricted to the issue of whether Billars professionally treated or examined her. She contends that the jury could very well have found that Billars saw her on the subsequent Clinic visits, even though he did not treat or examine her professionally. However, the record is clear that Bonnie failed to object to the form of the instruction at the time of the special trial, and consequently, is now precluded from raising this issue on appeal. See: Hogg v. First National Bank of Aberdeen, 386 N.W.2d 921, 924-925 (S.D.1986). In Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 114 (S.D.1977), we wrote: The failure of a court to correctly or fully instruct the jury is not reviewable unless an objection or exception to the instruction identifying the defect therein with sufficient particularity was taken or a written instruction correctly stating the law was requested. Id. at 116, citing SDCL 15-6-51; Lang v. Burns, 77 S.D. 626, 632, 97 N.W.2d 863,866 (1959) [SDCL 15-6-51(b) clearly makes it the burden of the objecting party to inform the trial judge of the grounds which justify the objection.]; Englebert v. Ryder, 77 S.D. 333,339-340, 91 N.W.2d 739,742-743 (1958).