Opinion ID: 76726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Occupation and Ownership Requirements in the Jury Charge

Text: 64 The defendants also contend that the damages award cannot be upheld because the jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs as a whole. Sandra Skypek and Charles Parker, however, did not own or occupy the Parker property at any relevant time prior to the initiation of this suit. Because ownership or occupancy is a necessary element of a claim for nuisance under Georgia law, Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Concrete Sales & Servs., 29 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1377 (M.D.Ga.1998); see Ga.Code Ann. § 41-1-4, the defendants argue that Sandra and Charles cannot, as a matter of Georgia law, recover damages for their state law claims. The Parkers respond that the defendants did not object to the jury instructions, which contained no distinction between the three plaintiffs, 30 and, therefore, any error is waived. 31 65 After reviewing the record, there is no indication that the defendants raised these contentions in the district court. Normally, when a party fails to object to a jury instruction prior to jury deliberations, that party waives its right to raise the issue on appeal. Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999). There are two exceptions to this rule: first, where a party has made its position clear to the court previously and further objection would be futile; and second, where it is necessary to `correct a fundamental error or prevent a miscarriage of justice.' Id. (quoting Landsman Packing Co. v. Continental Can Co., 864 F.2d 721, 726 (11th Cir.1989)). There is no indication in the record that the defendants made their objection known to the district court and, therefore, only the latter exception is relevant for this appeal. This exception is known as plain error review. Id. 66 Plain error review is very stringent and reversal for incorrect jury instructions will occur only in exceptional cases when the error is so fundamental that it results in a miscarriage of justice. Id. There are four requirements for plain error review: first, an error occurred; second, the error was plain; third, it affected substantial rights; and finally, not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceeding. Id. To meet this standard, the party must prove that the instruction was a misstatement of law that likely led to an incorrect verdict. The instruction must also `mislead the jury or leave the jury to speculate as to an essential point of law.' Id. (quoting Pate v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir.1987)). 67 We hold that the district court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that damages were not recoverable by a party who did not own or occupy the Parker residence at any relevant time prior to the filing of the complaint in this case. As explained above, ownership or occupancy is a necessary element for the maintenance of a nuisance action. 32 Thus, the jury may have awarded more in compensatory damages than it otherwise would have 33 and, as explained below, the award of punitive damages was certainly erroneous. The error was plain because Georgia law requires ownership or occupancy for a nuisance action. The error also affected the defendants' substantial rights because they have been ordered to pay at least $500,000.00 in punitive damages that likely cannot be awarded under Georgia law. 34 Finally, we conclude that an error of this magnitude resulted in a miscarriage of justice and seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, we reverse the district court's award of compensatory and punitive damages and remand for a new trial on damages. 35 See Georgia Northeastern R.R. v. Lusk, 277 Ga. 245, 587 S.E.2d 643 (2003) (reversing the damages award for a nuisance action and remanding for a new trial); Schriever v. Maddox, 259 Ga.App. 558, 578 S.E.2d 210 (2003) (reversing a jury's damages award on the basis of an incorrect jury charge and remanding for retrial on damages only).