Opinion ID: 1095914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Punitive Damages Instruction Issue

Text: Intracorp and Bradly first argue that the trial court reversibly erred in its instruction to the jury on the burden of proof required for assessment of punitive damages. While we agree that the trial court erred in its charge, we conclude that Intracorp and Bradly failed to object to the court's curative instruction, and, thus, that they failed to preserve this issue for our review. The record reveals that the trial court instructed the jury on the burden of proof required for assessment of punitive damages as follows: Now, the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in a case where the jury is reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the fraud not only took place but that the fraud was conducted or happened with either malice or wantonness or some gross behavior. (R. at 348; emphasis supplied.) Defense counsel objected to this charge after the entire oral charge was completed, by stating, We would also object to that portion of the charge which addressed the burden of proof, proving punitive damages as being only a burden of reasonable satisfaction and not clear and convincing evidence. (R. at 357.) The trial court overruled the defendants' objection. However, after the jury had retired to the deliberation room, and had been reinstructed by the trial court on certain matters, the issue was raised again. The record reads: MS. FERGUSON [counsel for the defendants]: I would like the record to show that the Defendants restate their same objections to the charge on suppression and punitive damages. THE COURT: All right. MR. ALEXANDER [counsel for the plaintiff]: When the jury came back out they were asking about punitive damages, and I'm not sure that we got you to include the words that it must be by clear and convincing evidence, and we would ask that Your Honor recharge them in accordance with 11.03 [Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions] and let them go back and THE COURT: What do you say? MS. FERGUSON: I think that the jury was charged on the wrong burden of proof on punitive damages. The jury has already indicated that they have their verdict. I don't know that it can be corrected. I don't know that you can charge them correctly on the burden, the substantially greater burden. They might have some questions about it. I think they need to be recharged again. MR. ALEXANDER: The Court hasn't accepted the verdict. .... MR. ALEXANDER: But I think it would be perfectly fine to give it now and let them go back. MS. FERGUSON: We would, I guess, insist that the jury by instructed on the correct burden. They have already arrived at [a] verdict based upon your previous charge. THE COURT: Well, I guess what I am saying is if I bring them in and charge them at this point in time and send them out, is that going to be objectionable? MS. FERGUSON: Yes, Your Honor. I believe it would be objectionable, but I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. They've been charged wrong twice now and are bringing in a verdict. Given the new charge I don't know that they are going to be able to look at the evidence in light of the new burden. I don't know that I have a choice though except to have them recharged under the correct burden. (R. at 364-66.) After this colloquy, the trial court gave a curative instruction that restated the burden of proof for assessing punitive damages as clear and convincing evidence. Of great importance, however, is the absence of any objection to the trial court's curative instruction. This Court acknowledges that, generally, a trial court must specifically withdraw an erroneous instruction, and then give the jury a correct instruction, to cure the giving of the erroneous instruction. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Holston, 271 Ala. 251, 122 So.2d 774 (1960), Alabama Farm Bur. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Carswell, 374 So.2d 250 (Ala.1979), and Stewart v. Clayton, 502 So.2d 767 (Ala.Civ. App.1986). However, where no objection to the corrected instruction, or to the court's failure to specifically withdraw the erroneous instruction, is made, no error is preserved for our review. Bush v. Alabama Farm Bur. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 576 So.2d 175 (Ala.1991); Rule 51, Ala.R.Civ.P. No error was preserved in this case because the defendants failed to object to the corrected instruction or to the trial court's failure to specifically withdraw the erroneous charge.