Opinion ID: 2587934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Haemonetics was properly excluded from the special verdict form.

Text: B & B argues that (1) Haemonetics manufactured and marketed the cell saver machine and the reinfusion bag, (2) the machine was capable of injecting air, and did inject air, into the reinfusion bag, (3) the bag itself could be pressurized, and (4) Ms. Jones died of a fatal air embolism as a result. B & B contends that based upon this evidence and testimony of witnesses, the jury could have reasonably found that Haemonetics should have been included on the special verdict form. We disagree, finding that B & B did not properly raise this issue before the trial court and preserve it for appeal. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 51(b) states that [n]o party may assign as error the giving of or failure to give an instruction unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the instruction to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.  (Emphasis added). This Court has interpreted Rule 51(b) to require a specific objection, instead of just a blanket objection, to an instruction. Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 144 Idaho 547, 556, 165 P.3d 261, 270 (2007); see also Bates v. Seldin, 203 P.3d 702, 2009 WL 530778 (Idaho 2009). In addition, Rule 51(b) contains similar language to I.C.R. 30(b), which this Court has interpreted as requiring a specific objection to a jury instruction. State v. Anderson, 144 Idaho 743, 749, 170 P.3d 886, 892 (2007). Furthermore, I.R.C.P. 49(a) requires that a party object specifically to any omissions in instructions: The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. In Lasselle v. Special Prods. Co., 106 Idaho 170, 173, 677 P.2d 483, 486 (1983), this Court interpreted Rule 49(a) to not require more than is normally expected of a party when objecting to an adverse ruling. However, Rule 51(b) was amended in 2004 to include the requirement that the party distinctly state the objection to a jury instruction. Therefore, we find that the language in Rule 51(b) is controlling, and B & B may not assign as error the failure to include Haemonetics on the special verdict form when it did not distinctly object to the exclusion of Haemonetics from the form. B & B first raised the issue of including Haemonetics on the special verdict form when it proposed a special verdict form including Haemonetics with the pre-trial submission of its proposed set of jury instructions. Subsequently, during the jury instruction conference, the district judge stated: I realize that there will probably just be substantial argument on a few of these instructions, and  but I want to go over every one and make sure that the parties have a full opportunity to voice any objections or to suggest any jury instructions that have not been included in this packet. Despite being provided with the opportunity to object to the exclusion of Haemonetics from the special verdict form, B & B said nothing. Instead, counsel simply made a blanket objection, stating I'll make the same objection for the record concerning failure to give any instruction submitted by B & B and giving any instruction of any other party. Counsel then went on to address the instructions regarding proximate cause. Therefore, the court was not made aware of B & B's specific objection to the exclusion of Haemonetics from the special verdict form. No further request was made concerning the special verdict form until B & B's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in which B & B argued that Haemonetics should have been included on the special verdict form because Haemonetics manufactured the Cell Saver 3 Plus machine and designed and manufactured all of the disposable equipment used each time salvaged blood is processed. B & B asserted that permitting the jury to access Haemonetic's liability would have allowed B & B to demonstrate to the jury the limited role and responsibility B & B had in the course of its successful and uneventful operation of the cell salvage machine. However, at the subsequent hearing on B & B's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, B & B argued that Haemonetics should have been included because if the plaintiffs can go in, and without calling Haemonetics witnesses, can use an expert to go over and borrow Haemonetics material and come in and interpret it and put in question the Haemonetics training program, then I would logically argue that Haemonetics should [have been] on the verdict form.... B & B appears to have been arguing in the hearing that Haemonetics should have been included because the training program was at issue. This was not consistent with its argument in its original motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Finally, on appeal, B & B now argues that Haemonetics should have been included on the special verdict form because the machine did not contain a design mechanism to prevent air from collecting in the reinfusion bag and the warning on the reinfusion bag was not adequate. Even if B & B did properly preserve this issue for appeal, the only issue that was presented to the district court was the design of the machine, and the court found that B & B did not present any evidence that Haemonetics was negligent for the construction of the blood-saver machine used in the surgery. In its appeal, B & B focuses on showing that it presented sufficient evidence of the inadequate warning on the reinfusion bag. Because we find that B & B did not properly preserve this issue for appeal, we affirm the district court's decision to exclude Haemonetics from the special verdict form. [3]