Opinion ID: 864742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in submitting a

Text: SPECIAL INTERROGATORY TO THE JURY WHICH PERMITTED THE APPEARANCE OF THE NEED OF THE JURY TO FIND A DEFECT IN THE CIGARETTES SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE FACT THAT UNDER THE RISK- UTILITY TEST THEY WERE UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS. ¶6. The trial court submitted the following interrogatory to the jury: 1. Do you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the cigarettes designed and manufactured by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and smoked by Joe Nunnally were in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition as defined elsewhere in these instructions? Yes No If you answered “no,” then proceed no further. If you answered “yes,” then go to the next question. 2. Has plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the “defective and unreasonably dangerous” condition of the cigarettes designed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company proximately caused or substantially contributed to Joe Nunnally’s cancer and death? Yes No If you answered “no,” then proceed no further. If you answered “yes,” then go to the next question. 3 3. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Joe Nunnally was negligent by knowing and appreciating the dangers of smoking cigarettes and exposing himself to those dangers by smoking? If so, then state the percentage below. % 4. What are the total compensatory damages sustained as a result of the death of Joe Nunnally? $ The jury answered question one in the negative. Plaintiff argues that this special interrogatory includes language from instructions D-7 and D-8, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff contends that RJR was, therefore, permitted to argue that no specific manufacturing defect was present in the cigarettes and that RJR’s products were the same as all other cigarettes. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that her requested special interrogatory would have eliminated the perceived confusion. RJR argues in response that the special interrogatory correctly stated the law; the court properly instructed the jury regarding risk-utility; and this issue is procedurally barred because plaintiff did not object to the language complained of before the trial court. ¶7. Our standard of review for jury instructions is as follows: [T]he instructions are to be read together as a whole, with no one instruction to be read alone or taken out of context. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case. However, the trial judge may also properly refuse the instructions if he finds them to incorrectly state the law or to repeat a theory fairly covered in another instruction or to be without proper foundation in the evidence of the case. Howell v. State, 860 So.2d 704, 761 (Miss. 2003). Where a party fails to make a contemporaneous objection to a proposed jury instruction so that the trial court has an 4 opportunity to cure the defect, we are procedurally barred from considering arguments that the trial court erred in submitting the instruction. Haggerty v. Foster, 838 So.2d 948, 954 (Miss. 2002). Thus, failure to object constitutes a waiver of that assertion on appeal. Id. “When reviewing the form or content of special interrogatories it is essential that adequate objections were timely made.” Jones v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 So.2d 1249, 1251 (Miss. 1997) (quoting Barton's Disposal Serv., Inc., v. Tiger Corp., 886 F.2d 1430 (5th Cir. 1989)). We have held that the appropriate procedure for preserving this issue for appeal is (1) making a clear objection for the record, or (2) proposing an alternative interrogatory. Id. ¶8. We find that plaintiff did not preserve this issue for appeal. She is, therefore, procedurally barred from raising this issue. RJR concedes that plaintiff’s attorney initially objected to proposed Instruction D-24, the instruction on which Special Interrogatory Number 1 was based. However, Nunnally’s attorney participated in the subsequent modification of RJR’s proposed instruction D-24. Nunnally’s attorney did not object to the language at issue here during the modification, nor did he object after the modifications were complete. We find that this issue is without merit.