Opinion ID: 444210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court's jury instructions were proper.

Text: 38 When reviewing jury instructions, this court must ask whether, viewing the jury instructions as a whole, the trial judge gave adequate instructions on each element of the case to insure that the jury fully understood the issues. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. N.F.L., 726 F.2d 1381, 1398 (9th Cir.1984). Accord, Wellman v. Jellison, 593 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1979) (question is whether the instructions as a whole gave the jury enough guidance to intelligently determine the questions presented).
39 Fruehauf makes two attacks on the court's jury instructions: first, that the jury was improperly instructed on the issue of notice to seller of defects in the dump bodies; and second, that the instructions as a whole were heavily weighted in the purchaser's favor and wholly failed to submit appellant's theory of the case to the jury. Neither of these contentions has merit. 40 First, Instruction No. 9 adequately advised the jury of Fiorito's duty to notify Fruehauf of defects before Fruehauf could be held responsible for breach of warranty. The instruction stated that the jury could not find breach unless it found that Fruehauf failed to make repairs under the represented warranty after due and proper notice of the defects had been given by Fiorito to Fruehauf. (Emphasis added.) Fruehauf's objections to this instruction are overly technical. 41 Second, the court's instructions when viewed as a whole appear to be entirely proper. A party is not entitled to a jury instruction phrased exactly as it desires; rather, an instruction is proper if it adequately allows the party to argue its theory of the case to the jury. See Sanderson v. Chapman, 487 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1973). Fruehauf's objections to the jury instructions appear to be based on the erroneous belief that the court should have embraced its substantive theories. Nothing in the record or in the case law undercuts the trial court's view of its own instructions, which it explained in its order denying a new trial: 42 [T]his case was not as complicated and difficult as [Fruehauf] tries to suggest.... [Fruehauf] was fully enabled to make a closing statement and to highlight such parts of the court's instructions as it saw fit. [Fruehauf's] theories are accurately summarized in the court's instructions, and [Fruehauf] was allowed to argue therefrom. That is all that fairness requires. 43 In summary, Fruehauf's contention that the jury instructions were improperly slanted in favor of Fiorito is unpersuasive.