Opinion ID: 1852099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intrusion-on-Seclusion Claim

Text: Regions also argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a JML as to the claim of intrusion on seclusion. However, this argument is moot. The trial court denied Regions' motion for a JML as to both the false-light claim and the intrusion-on-seclusion claim and mentioned to the jury that the Plotts were seeking compensation under a claim of intrusion on seclusion. However, it instructed the jury only on the elements of the false-light claim. The Plotts expressly acquiesced in the charge, which contained no substantive instructions on the intrusion-on-seclusion claim. It is well established that `[u]nchallenged jury instructions become the law of the case.' Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Land Energy, Ltd., 886 So.2d 787, 795 (Ala.2004) (quoting Clark v. Black, 630 So.2d 1012, 1017 (Ala.1993)); BIC Corp. v. Bean, 669 So.2d 840, 844 (Ala.1995). It is also a sound principle that juries are authorized to return verdicts only as to claims on which they have been instructed. Alpha Coal Co. v. National Cement Co., 420 So.2d 275 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Capitol City Haulers, Inc., 393 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). Argument of counsel to a jury does not replace the court's charge to the jury.... The jury cannot be left without a rudder as to what [it is] called upon to decide and as to the law applicable thereto.  393 So.2d at 1015 (emphasis added). It hardly bears repeating that [s]ubmitting [proposed jury] instructions is not sufficient to preserve an error in failing to give those instructions. Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 242 (7th Cir.1991) (the plaintiff waived [his] claim in the district court by failing to object to the court's refusal to give his requested instructions; because the court never instructed the jury on [that claim],... the jury had no opportunity to decide it). When the Plotts expressed their approval of the jury charge, which did not include instructions on their claim of intrusion on seclusion, they waived that claim, and the general verdict returned by the jury could not have been based on it. Because the claim was not included in the verdict, or in the judgment entered on that verdict, Regions' challenge to the denial of a JML as to that claim is moot. Therefore, to that extent, the appeal is dismissed.