Opinion ID: 2219283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Loss of Wages Issue.

Text: The plaintiff requested this instruction: If you find Sandra Biddle is entitled to recover damages, you shall consider the following items: .... (2) The reasonable value of lost wages from the date of the accident to the date of Sandra Biddle's death. The court did not give the requested instruction or any other instruction on lost wages, and the plaintiff raises this as an issue on appeal. The defendant responds (1) the plaintiff's evidence of lost wages was insufficient to submit the issue, and (2) the plaintiff failed to object to the court's failure to submit lost wages as an element of damages. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.924 (formerly rule 196) provides in part: Before jury arguments, the court shall give to each counsel a copy of its instructions in their final form, noting this fact of record and granting reasonable time for counsel to make objections, which shall be made and ruled on before arguments to the jury. Within such time, all objections to giving or failing to give any instruction must be made in writing or dictated into the record, out of the jury's presence, specifying the matter objected to and on what grounds. No other grounds or objections shall be asserted thereafter, or considered on appeal. In State v. Wright, 274 N.W.2d 307 (Iowa 1979), we adopted a pragmatic view of this rule, holding that when a court gives only one set of instructions, rather than both a preliminary and final set as contemplated by rule 196, strict adherence to the procedure of rule 196 is not required. In Wright the defendant requested an instruction on the reliability of eyewitness testimony at the instruction conference on the record, just prior to jury arguments. The court refused the requested instruction, and the defendant raised the issue on appeal. We recognized that [t]he purpose of requiring compliance with rule 196 procedure is to fully (alert) the trial court to the point of law and question of fact on which he relies in urging the requested instruction be given. Wright, 274 N.W.2d at 312 (quoting State v. Tomlinson, 243 N.W.2d 551, 553 (Iowa 1976)). In Wright, despite the court's failure to designate the instructions as final so as to trigger the rule's requirement for specific objections, we held the instruction issue was properly raised in the district court because the defendant advised the court what he wanted and why; the court ruled upon the matter before arguments to the jury; and it was all on the record. We conclude these instructions as to which the record was made were final instructions for purposes of determining sufficiency of defendant's record on failure to give his requested instruction, and that the record so made was an objection sufficient to preserve the matter for appeal. Id. In the present case, no record was made on the failure of the court to instruct on lost wages. Although the plaintiff filed a requested instruction on lost wages, there is no showing that she alerted the court or opposing counsel to the issue. Merely filing a requested instruction, without making a record with regard to the matter, does not even amount to substantial compliance with rule 1.924, as in Wright. AFFIRMED.