Opinion ID: 2286987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Instruction as to Future Damages

Text: The City argues [t]he trial court erred in instructing the jury on future damages because future damages were not supported by the evidence in that there was no evidence that [Howard] was reasonably certain to sustain damage in the future. Specifically, Instruction No. 6 read: If you find in favor of plaintiff, then you must award plaintiff such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff for any damages you believe plaintiff sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in the evidence. This instruction was modeled after MAI 4.01 [2002 Revision]. The trial court did not submit an alternative instruction offered by the City that read as follows: If you find in favor of Plaintiff Melissa Howard, then you must award Plaintiff such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate Plaintiff for any damages you believe Plaintiff sustained as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in the evidence. Instructional error is reviewed de novo. Harvey v. Washington, 95 S.W.3d 93, 97 (Mo. banc 2003). The verdict will be reversed only if the party claiming instructional error establishes that the instruction at issue misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudicial error. Id. To the extent that this point attempts to challenge the instruction given, the claim of error has not been preserved. Rule 70.03 instructs that [n]o party may assign as error the giving or failure to give instructions unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Timely objections [to an instruction] are required as a condition precedent to appellate review in order to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any mistakes immediately and inexpensively without risking the delay and expense of an appeal and a retrial. Gomez v. Construction Design, Inc., 126 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Mo. banc 2004). There is no record of the City making an objection to Instruction No. 6 at trial. Notably, there is a record of the City objecting to three other instructions (Instruction Nos. 4, 5 and 7), and providing grounds for those objections. To the extent that the City did submit an alternative version of the instruction, which the trial court refused, the City could have raised an issue regarding the trial court's failure to give the alternative instruction, but it did not do this either. There is nothing in the record indicating the City objected at trial to the court's failure to give its alternative instruction. Moreover, the City failed to preserve in its motion for new trial any issue regarding the court's refusal to give the City's version of the instruction. To the extent that this point challenges submissibility, this claim of error also was not preserved. Rule 72.01(a) mandates [a] motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. To preserve a question of submissibility for appellate review in a jury-tried case, a motion for directed verdict must be filed at the close of all the evidence and, in the event of an adverse verdict, an after-trial motion for a new trial or to set aside a verdict must assign as error the trial court's failure to have directed such a verdict.... [However], a motion for directed verdict that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 72.01(a) neither presents a basis for relief in the trial court nor preserves the issue in the appellate court. Pope v. Pope, 179 S.W.3d 442, 451 (Mo. App.2005). See, e.g., Johnson v. Allstate Indem. Co., 278 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Mo.App. 2009) (holding defendant's claim of insufficient evidence to find him negligent for defamatory statements against plaintiff was not preserved for appeal where it was not raised as a specific ground in its motion for directed verdict); Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp., 975 S.W.2d 155, 163-64 (Mo.App.1997) (holding that because defendant's motions for directed verdict did not raise the issue of submissibility of aggravating circumstances they failed to preserve that issue for appellate review). Where an insufficient motion for directed verdict has been made, a subsequent post-verdict motion is without basis and preserves nothing for review. Pope, 179 S.W.3d at 451. The City's motion for a directed verdict against Howard set forth the following grounds: 1. The MHRA does not apply to the decisions made by the Kansas City Council because they were not employment decisions. 2. The evidence fails to prove that Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of her race when the City Council failed to appoint her to the vacancy in Division 205 of the Municipal Division of the Sixteenth Circuit of Jackson County. 3. The evidence fails to prove that Plaintiff was retaliated against because she filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages, and has not put forth sufficient evidence to support an instruction for punitive damages. As shown, the City's motion for directed verdict contains no language relating to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding future damages. Accordingly, the motion does not state the specific grounds that are now asserted by the City on appeal that future damages were not supported by the evidence in that there was no evidence that [Howard] was reasonably certain to sustain damage in the future. In fact, the word future does not appear once in the motion. Because the City did not argue against the submissibility of future damages in its motion for directed verdict, it has failed to preserve the issue for appeal. [15]