Opinion ID: 1118488
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the superior court err in giving jury instruction number 31?

Text: Van Huff claims that the superior court improperly instructed the jury as to Sohio's economic necessity defense because jury instruction number 31 failed to define legitimate business purpose. Regardless of whether he properly objected to this error, Van Huff posits, the error requires a new trial. Under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 51(a), [n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. See Girves v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 536 P.2d 1221, 1223 (Alaska 1975) (Civil Rule 51(a) is intended to ensure that a trial judge is clearly made aware of the precise nature of the alleged error.). The record indicates that Van Huff did not object during trial that instruction number 31 did not define legitimate business purpose. Instead, Van Huff objected to that instruction because it failed to explain that the business purpose claimed by SCC as a defense must be reasonable, and that SCC's termination of Van Huff must have been honestly done for that purpose. Because Van Huff now raises an objection which is entirely different from those he voiced at trial, we do not consider his objection. [4]