Opinion ID: 2224519
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the jury verdict.

Text: Christians' final contention concerns the jury's verdict. First, he argues the verdict is against the law, restating the same arguments discussed previously. We need not discuss those issues any further. Second, Christians argues the $75,000 jury award is not supported by sufficient evidence. SDCL 15-6-59(a) (1984) provides in part: A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for any of the following causes:       (6) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision or that it is against law; SDCL 15-26A-8 (1984) provides: Such of the matters specified in subdivisions (6) and (7) of § 15-6-59(a) as may have been timely presented to the trial court by motion for directed verdict, request for findings, or other apt motion, offer, or objection may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment without necessity for an application for new trial. It is well settled, [i]nsufficiency of the evidence may not be reviewed unless it has been timely presented to the trial court by a proper motion for a directed verdict, request for findings, or other apt motion, offer, objection, or exception. City of Mitchell v. Beauregard, 430 N.W.2d 704, 706-07 (S.D.1988) (citing SDCL 15-6-59(a); SDCL 15-6-59(f); SDCL 15-26A-8); Pearson v. Adams, 279 N.W.2d 674, 676-77 (S.D.1979); Schoenrock v. City of Sisseton, 78 S.D. 419, 425-26, 103 N.W.2d 649, 653 (1960) (defendants precluded from raising the question of excessiveness of the verdict on appeal where they failed to bring to the trial court's attention the particulars in which the evidence was claimed to be insufficient); Lang v. Burns, 77 S.D. 626, 632-33, 97 N.W.2d 863, 867 (1959); Gednalski v. Dell Rapids Quarry Co., 70 S.D. 616, 20 N.W.2d 226 (1945). Nowhere in his brief does Christians state he made any motion to the trial court to overturn the jury's damage award because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The record does not reflect any motion for directed verdict ... or other apt motion, offer, or objection that would preserve Christians' right to appeal on this issue. We hold Christians did not preserve these matters on the record so as to enable this court to engage in appellate review of this issue. The judgment is affirmed. HENDERSON, J., concurs with a writing. MILLER, C.J., concurs specially. SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., dissent.