Opinion ID: 6322867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: [1] When reviewing a jury verdict, the appellate court considers the evidence and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party. 1 [2] A jury verdict may not be set aside unless clearly wrong, and it is sufficient if there is competent evidence presented to the jury upon which it could find for the successful party. 2 [3] When the jury returns a general verdict for one party, we presume that the jury found for the successful party on all issues raised by that party and presented to the jury. 3 [4] The “general verdict” rule, which is also referred to as the “two issue” rule, is a policy rule which provides that where a general verdict is returned for one of the parties, and the mental processes of the jury are not tested by special 1 Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38, 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818, 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395, 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presenting another issue will be disregarded. 4 [5] One cannot silently tolerate error, gamble on a favorable result, and then complain that one guessed wrong. 5 [6] An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court. 6 [7] A motion for reconsideration, which is considered nothing more than an invitation to the court to consider exercising its inherent power to vacate or modify its own judgment, is insufficient for purposes of asking a trial court to pass upon an issue in order to properly preserve it for appeal. 7 [8] The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run must be determined from the facts of each case, and the decision of the district court on the issue of the statute of limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless clearly wrong. 8 [9] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict, an appellate court must treat the motion as an admission of the truth of all competent evidence submitted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed; such being the case, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in its favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence. 9 4 Kuhnel v. BNSF Railway Co., 20 Neb. App. 884, 834 N.W.2d 803 (2013), reversed on other grounds, 287 Neb. 541, 844 N.W.2d 251 (2014); Lahm v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 6 Neb. App. 182, 571 N.W.2d 126 (1997). 5 Maxwell v. Montey, 262 Neb. 160, 631 N.W.2d 455 (2001). 6 Id. 7 See id. 8 Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944, 644 N.W.2d 522 (2002). 9 Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, supra note 1. - 570 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 [10] Review of a ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is de novo on the record. 10 [11] Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question of law, which an appellate court independently decides. 11 [12] Failure to object to jury instructions after they have been submitted to counsel for review or to offer more specific instructions if counsel feels the court-tendered instructions are not sufficiently specific precludes raising an objection on appeal. 12 [13] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complaining party. 13 [14] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 14 [15] Where jury instructions are claimed deficient on appeal and such issue was not raised at trial, an appellate court reviews for plain error. 15 [16] An appellate court reviews a denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment for an abuse of discretion. 16 [17] On appeal, the fact finder’s determination of damages is given great deference. 17 The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and its action in 10 Valley Boys v. American Family Ins. Co., 306 Neb. 928, 947 N.W.2d 856 (2020). 11 City of Wahoo v. NIFCO Mech. Systems, 306 Neb. 203, 944 N.W.2d 757 (2020). 12 See Wilkins v. Bergstrom, 17 Neb. App. 615, 767 N.W.2d 136 (2009); Neb. Ct. R. § 6-802. 13 Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625, 947 N.W.2d 103 (2020). 14 Shipler v. General Motors Corp., 271 Neb. 194, 710 N.W.2d 807 (2006). 15 Foundation One Bank v. Svoboda, 303 Neb. 624, 931 N.W.2d 431 (2019). 16 Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, supra note 1. 17 Shipler v. General Motors Corp., supra note 14. - 571 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 this respect will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to elements of damages proved. 18 [18] While the amount of damages presents a question of fact, the proper measure of damages presents a question of law. 19 [19] An award of damages may be set aside as excessive or inadequate when, and not unless, it is so excessive or inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. 20 [20] Allocation of a settlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 21