Opinion ID: 399919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Negligence Instructions.

Text: 31 Cook also argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could find Cook negligent for failure to conduct tests to determine the flammability of Coro-foam insulation. 32 Counsel for Cook conceded at oral argument that he had not objected to the trial court's instruction on negligence or otherwise requested an instruction ruling out failure to conduct tests as a basis for negligence. Unless the court's instruction amounted to plain error, Cook may not raise this issue for the first time on appeal. See Wright v. Farmers Co-op of Arkansas and Oklahoma, 620 F.2d 694, 698-99 (8th Cir. 1980); Fed.R.Civ.P. 51. We cannot say the giving of the instruction constituted plain error. Moreover, Cook has shown no prejudice inasmuch as its failure to test related in part to the Nevilles' negligence claim based on Cook's failure to warn of the insulation's flammability characteristics. 33