Opinion ID: 1263564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudicial Effect of the Special Verdict Form

Text: SCDOT argues that the special verdict form submitted by the trial court was unduly suggestive or misleading as to the appraisal method to be used by the jury in calculating just compensation. We disagree. At the outset we must address the trial court's ruling that SCDOT waived its objection to the special verdict form. It is well settled that an issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion. McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Syst., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996). Further, it is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error. Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471, 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965). Additionally, [i]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review. Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998). There are four basic requirements to preserving issues at trial for appellate review. The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity. Jean Hoefer Toal et al., Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002). During trial, the court announced its intention to use a special verdict form and asked if either party objected to the use of the form. SCDOT stated that we would just prefer the first verdict form. The court denied the request finding the special verdict form appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy and appellate court economy. The court then asked if either party wished to include more instructions regarding the use of the form, and SCDOT replied, I understand and, your honor, if you are going to use this form then that's fine, either way. After the court charged the jury, but before the court gave the jury the verdict form, SCDOT again objected to the use of the verdict form stating the Department objects to the verdict form [sic] it emphasizes damages by its bifurcated nature and the Department doesn't believe that the landowner has proven its damages to the standards required by the law in this case. The court overruled SCDOT's objection. SCDOT filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict asserting that the verdict form was unduly suggestive. The trial court found that SCDOT did not object to the use of the verdict form on that basis, and therefore, the court found that the objection was waived. SCDOT argues that although it did not use those exact words, it nonetheless objected to the use of the special verdict form on the basis that it emphasized the appraisal method advocated by First Carolina. We hold that SCDOT made a timely objection to the use of the special verdict form. Although SCDOT did not phrase its objection in the exact terms used in the issues on appeal, SCDOT's objection on the basis that the verdict form emphasizes damages by its bifurcated nature provided a meaningful objection with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to rule on the issue. State v. Russell, 345 S.C. 128, 134, 546 S.E.2d 202, 204 (Ct.App.2001) (holding that a party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve an argument, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground). In fact, the trial court denied the motion finding that the form did not emphasize damages because the jury could choose to calculate damages using SCDOT's proposed method and fill in only the first question. Further, SCDOT's initial objection and discussion with the trial court regarding the use of the special verdict form was not a concession to the use of the form. The record reflects that SCDOT's statement, I understand and, your honor, if you are going to use this form then that's fine, either way, was simply a response to the court's question concerning any requests for additional instructions to the jury on the form. Turning to the merits, a special verdict question may be so defective in its formulation that its submission results in a prejudicial effect which constitutes reversible error. 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d § 2508, p. 193. In evaluating the prejudicial effect of a defective special verdict question or special interrogatory, the court must consider the question or interrogatory along with the instructions given to the jury. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 282, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct.App.1991) (finding that special interrogatories and instructions must be considered together). The prejudicial effect of a defective verdict form may be cured where the trial court provides clear and cogent jury instructions. See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188, 214, 628 S.E.2d 482, 496 (Ct.App.2006); State v. Myers, 344 S.C. 532, 536, 544 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct.App.2001). [2] The special verdict form submitted to the jury by the court asked three questions: [3] 1) We, the jury, unanimously find just compensation for the landowner for the land actually taken by the Department of Transportation to be_____. 2) Do you, the jury, unanimously find any special damages to the remaining property of the landowner that are a direct and proximate result of the taking?___ No. If No is chosen, end deliberations and sign verdict form. ___Yes. If Yes is chosen, go to Question 3. 3) We, the jury, unanimously find special damages to the remaining property of the landowner in the amount of _____. During the jury charge, the trial court explained to the jury that it could find just compensation using either of the two methods presented during trial. The court went on to explain fully both the before and after method of calculation, and also the appraisal method which requires a finding of the value of land taken plus damage to the remaining property. At the end of the jury charge, the court explained the use of the verdict form. The court further explained that the jury was not required to find any compensation under Question 3, but if it did find compensation under Question 3, that amount would be in addition to the compensation found in Question 1. Reading the verdict form in conjunction with the jury instructions, we find that any possible confusion or misapprehension caused by the verdict form was remedied by the instructions from the court. The form did not misstate the law or restrict the jury's finding to one method of calculation. Furthermore, although SCDOT argues that the more prudent choice would have been to use a general verdict form, SCDOT presented no evidence that the use of the special verdict form bent the will of the jury or prejudiced SCDOT in any way. Accordingly, the special verdict form utilized by the trial court was not unduly suggestive or misleading, and did not prejudice SCDOT. Additionally, any perceived defect in the form was cured by the trial court's instructions as to the law and use of the form.