Court Opinion

ID: 9588590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:36:00.912644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:59.622617
License: Public Domain

Judge COZORT
concurs in part and dissents in part.
I dissent with the portion of the majority opinion granting a new trial for defendants on the issue of the defendants’ counterclaim and third party claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices. In my opinion the defendants waived the right to have certain factual issues determined by the jury because they failed to properly demand their submission to the jury. In Superior Foods, Inc. v. Harris-Teeter Super Markets, Inc., and Merico, Inc., 288 N.C. 213, 217 S.E. 2d 566 (1975), the Supreme Court held that, *487“the right to have an issue of fact determined by the jury is waived unless a party demands its submission before the jury retires.” Id. at 225, 217 S.E. 2d at 575. At the issue conference below, attorney for defendants asked the trial court to submit to the jury the issue of whether plaintiff and the third-party defendant committed an unfair trade practice. The defendants were not entitled to have that issue submitted to the jury because that issue is a matter of law to be determined by the trial court after the jury answers appropriate factual issues. The trial court below failed to submit the appropriate factual issues which arose from the evidence. Defendants did not request the submission of the appropriate factual issues, and, by failing to make such a demand or request, have waived the right to have them submitted. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 49(c), and Wright v. American General Life Insurance Company, 59 N.C. App. 591, 599-600, 297 S.E. 2d 910, 915-16 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 583, 299 S.E. 2d 653 (1983).
I vote no error.