Opinion ID: 418037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Concurrent Negligence Instruction.

Text: 19 The Water Works argues that the trial court erred in submitting the instruction on concurrent negligence to the jury, because it was confusing and contained terms not defined and not understood by the average juror. We find that the Water Works has failed to preserve this issue for appeal, since the record indicates that the plaintiff did not object specifically to the instruction before the jury began its deliberations. 20 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51, a party may assign as error the giving of an instruction only when he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Id. The Water Works made no such objection, and [e]rror in the instructions not properly objected to is waived unless the error is plain error in the sense that a miscarriage of justice would ... result if the challenged instruction and the verdict are allowed to stand. Rowe International, Inc. v. J-B Enterprises, Inc., 647 F.2d 830, 835 (8th Cir.1981); see also Mid-America Food Service, Inc. v. ARA Services, Inc., 578 F.2d 691, 695-96 (8th Cir.1978); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, Sec. 2558 at 672. The plain error exception to compliance with Rule 51 is narrow and confined to the exceptional case where error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Rowe International, Inc. v. J-B Enterprises, Inc., 647 F.2d at 835; see also Wright v. Farmers Co-op, 620 F.2d 694, 699 (8th Cir.1980); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, Sec. 2558 at 675. 21 The Water Works contends on appeal that the terms concurring negligence, jointly and severally liable, and tort feasors are not present in the vocabulary of lay persons, and therefore should have been defined by the trial court in the jury instructions, but were not. 22 In denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the district court held that these terms were capable of being understood by the average juror. Whether or not this is so, the better practice is for the court to explain such terms to jurors when the possibility for confusion exists. However, in this case the district judge was not alerted to the plaintiff's concern regarding the possibility for confusion. We find that inclusion of the instruction by the district court was not plain error. 23