Opinion ID: 1965207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jury instructions given at trial

Text: Under the third assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court erred when it gave certain jury instructions over their objections. Specifically, they assign as error the giving of the following jury instructions: Nos. 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22. In order to appeal a jury instruction, an objection to the proposed instruction must be made at the trial level. Failure to object to a jury instruction after it has been submitted to counsel for review precludes raising an objection on appeal absent plain error. State on Behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1, 554 N.W.2d 769 (1996). Furthermore, in order to be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error. Schindler v. Walker, 256 Neb. 767, 592 N.W.2d 912 (1999). Of the 10 instructions that appellants assign as error, only 2 of them have been properly objected, assigned, and argued. We will therefore not consider the other eight instructions assigned as error. The two instructions properly before the court, Nos. 21 and 22, both deal with the CPA. Since we have already determined that application of the CPA in this case was error, albeit harmless error, we need not determine whether these two instructions resulted in prejudicial error. Obviously, the instructions should not have been given because the CPA did not apply to the transaction between the parties. The point is moot, however, in light of our finding that it was harmless error for the trial court to apply the CPA in this case. Under the fourth assignment of error, appellants contend that the trial court erred when it refused to give proposed jury instructions Nos. 4, 7, 8, and 13. We decline to address this contention, however, because appellants have failed to provide any meaningful argument on the fourth assignment of error. To establish reversible error from a court's refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the appellant was prejudiced by the court's refusal to give the tendered instruction, (2) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, and (3) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence. Hausman v. Cowan, 257 Neb. 852, 601 N.W.2d 547 (1999). Appellants' argument on the fourth assignment of error consists of the unsupported statement that the proffered instructions were promulgated by the Supreme Court and should have been followed by the trial court. Appellants do not attempt to explain, however, why they should have been followed. Appellants assert that the instructions were clear and concise and not suggestive to the jury. We cannot discern from this argument why the proposed instructions should have been given. Appellants have essentially failed to make any of the showings that are required to establish reversible error from a court's refusal to give a requested instruction. We find that appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court erred in its refusal to give the proposed instructions. Finally, we reach the fifth assignment of error, in which appellants argue that the trial court erred by overruling their motion for a directed verdict. A trial court should direct a verdict as a matter of law only when the facts are conceded, undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom. Alexander v. J.D. Warehouse, 253 Neb. 153, 568 N.W.2d 892 (1997). At the close of appellee's case and again at the close of all the evidence, appellants moved for a directed verdict as to appellant Myers. Appellants' motion was based on their contention that appellant Lusterstone, as owner of the Jeep, was the only proper defendant. Appellants argued that appellee had not produced sufficient evidence to pierce appellant Lusterstone's corporate veil or to treat appellant Myers as an alter ego of the corporation. In other words, appellants argued that appellant Myers could not be held personally liable for his actions on behalf of the corporation. On appeal, appellants argue that to hold appellant Myers liable, the corporate veil must be pierced. We find appellants' argument to be without merit. Generally, a corporation is viewed as a complete and separate entity from its shareholders and officers, who are not, as a rule, liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation. Huffman v. Poore, 6 Neb.App. 43, 569 N.W.2d 549 (1997). However, it has long been held in Nebraska that where fraud is committed by a corporation, it is time to disregard the corporate fiction and hold the persons responsible for the fraud liable in their individual capacities. Id. See, also, Service-Master Indus. v. J.R.L. Enterprises, 223 Neb. 39, 388 N.W.2d 83 (1986). What constitutes fraud is a question of fact in each case. ServiceMaster Indus. v. J.R.L. Enterprises, supra . At the close of appellee's case, there was ample evidence to support a finding that appellant Lusterstone committed fraud through the actions of its president, appellant Myers. Therefore, this was an appropriate case in which to disregard the corporate fiction and hold appellant Myers responsible in his individual capacity. We therefore find that the trial court did not err by overruling appellants' motion for a directed verdict.