Opinion ID: 1842881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Allegedly Erroneous Jury Instructions Issue

Text: Gulf Shores argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with regard to assumption of the risk, estoppel, and an engineer's making a choice between two or more professionally recognized methods or approaches to a problem. We conclude that Gulf Shores failed to specifically state the grounds upon which its objections were based, and, thus, that Gulf Shores is precluded from arguing this issue on appeal. As to the assumption of the risk charge, the trial court charged the jury: If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of having a moratorium imposed, then you cannot return a verdict for the Plaintiff in negligence. The three elements essential to the assumption of a risk in cases of this kind are that the party charged with the assumption of the risk, one, had knowledge of the existence of conditions which could likely have resulted in the imposition of a moratorium and, two, with appreciation of such conditions, three, failed to exercise care for its own best interests by exposing itself to said probability. (R. at 3507.) After the oral charge, counsel for Gulf Shores objected to this charge, stating We object to the reading to the jury ESA charge No. 29, charge No. 30 on assumption of risk; those last two on assumption of risk. (R. at 3553.) This objection did not state the grounds of Gulf Shores's objection, as is required by Rule 51, Ala. R.Civ.P. Crigler v. Salac, 438 So.2d 1375 (Ala.1983). On the estoppel charge, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: Harbert has raised the defense of equitable estoppel. That defense is based on the ground of public policy and good faith and is used to prevent injustice and to guard against fraud by denying a person the right to repudiate his acts, admissions, or representations, when they have been relied on by persons to whom they were directed and ... whose conduct they were intended to and did influence. If you determine that the conduct, or acts, or admissions, or representations of either the City of Gulf Shores or the GUSC were relied upon by any party to this action, then you may find that the Plaintiffs are estopped from using their own misconduct to their benefit. There are three basic elements to equitable estoppel: First, a person who has knowledge of the true facts, communicates something in a misleading way, either by words, conduct, or silence; second, the other party relies upon that communication; and third, that the other party would be harmed materially if the person making the misleading communication is later permitted to assert any claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct. (R. at 3535.) Counsel for Gulf Shores objected to the estoppel instructions by stating: We also object to the reading to the jury ofand the giving of Harbert's instruction No. 33; Harbert's instruction No. 36; Harbert's instruction No.numbered 21 through 25, which involve equitable estoppel. We object to the giving of Parkson's charge No. 2 on estoppel. (R. at 3554.) This objection, also, failed to state specific grounds as required by Rule 51, Ala. R.Civ.P. On the choice between different methods or approaches to a problem, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: The duty of an engineer in his profession is to use the degree of knowledge, skill and care ordinarily possessed and used by members of that profession, and to perform any service undertaken as an engineer in a manner that a reasonably prudent engineer would use under the same or similar circumstances. Where there are various recognized methods of procedure, an engineer is at liberty to follow a recognized method of treatment [or problem solving] which he thinks is best, although witnesses may give their opinion that some other method would have been preferable. (R. at 3506.) Counsel for Gulf Shores objected to this charge by stating, Now, we respectfully object to the giving of the Defendant Harbert International'sI beg your pardon, ESA, ESA No. 8, which was read to the jury. (R. at 3553.) This objection most certainly does not meet the requirement of Rule 51, Ala.R.Civ.P. Therefore, because Gulf Shores failed to state the grounds upon which its objections to these jury instructions were based, it cannot now argue error as to these charges.