Opinion ID: 1362157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Objections

Text: On appeal, the position taken by defendant-appellees is that plaintiffs objected to the giving of Instruction 8 upon the sole ground that it was not a correct statement of the law. They point out that appellants' only contention on appeal is that there was no basis in the evidence for such an instruction. Reliance is placed upon Rule 51, W.R.C.P., which provides that only such grounds as are stated in objecting to an instruction at the time of trial shall be considered on appeal. Appellees cite in support of their contention North Central Gas Company v. Bloem, Wyo., 376 P.2d 382, 385. We have made it clear in previous opinions that the reason for Rule 51 and for the enforcement of such a rule is that, in all fairness to the trial judge, counsel should point out with definiteness and particularity wherein the instruction is in error. See State v. Chambers, 70 Wyo. 283, 249 P.2d 158, 162; and Drummer v. State, Wyo., 366 P.2d 20, 24. In the case at bar, after all the evidence was in and before the matter had been submitted to the jury, a motion for directed verdict was made on behalf of both plaintiffs. One of the grounds stated in this motion was that the undisputed evidence failed to show that plaintiffs were engaged in a joint venture and as a result of such failure Patricia Edwards was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Moreover, the record discloses that prior to the giving of Instruction 8, counsel for plaintiffs had offered two instructions to the effect that as a matter of law Patricia Edwards was not contributorily negligent and the negligence, if any, of the driver could not be imputed to her. These instructions were denied and, in counsels' objections to the denial, he stated as one of the grounds that as a matter of law the evidence shows that Patricia Edwards was not guilty of contributory negligence. Thus, it appears that before Instruction 8 was given plaintiff-Patricia had made her position entirely clear to the court that the undisputed evidence failed to show that plaintiffs were engaged in a joint adventure, and that as a matter of law she was not guilty of contributory negligence. As stated in 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1104, pp. 463-464, only those errors are waived which might have been corrected had the proper objection or request been made; and if the trial judge is fully informed of the specific grounds of objection or request, there is no need for repetition. We arrive at the same result in this particular case by holding with Mrs. Edwards on her contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to instruct, on proper request therefor, that she as a matter of law was not contributorily negligent, and that negligence, if any, on the part of the driver could not be imputed to her. What we have previously said concerning the absence of evidence of a joint adventure makes it apparent that such an instruction should have been given.