Court Opinion

ID: 9603702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:09:08.917046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:57.751500
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated below, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
*151As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 10(c) of our Rules of Appellate Procedure in preserving his assignments of error. Rule 10(c)(1) provides, in relevant part:
A listing of the assignments of error which an appeal is predicated shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal, in short form without argument, and shall be separately numbered. Each assignment of error shall, so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned. An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made with clear and specific record or transcript references.
Plaintiffs two assignments of error read in their entirety as follows:
1. The award of nominal damages by the jury was contrary to law and the instructions of the Court, on the grounds that evidence of Plaintiffs damages under the Phased Retirement Program contract was admitted by the Court in the Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief, constituted a sum certain under the contract, and no evidence was introduced by the Defendant to dispute that amount.
2. Denial of Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on the ground that the jury disregarded the Court’s instructions on contract damages.
Plaintiff makes no attempt to direct the attention of this Court to any portion of the record on appeal or to the transcript with any references thereto. As such his appeal must be dismissed for failure to follow our mandatory Rules of Appellate Procedure. State v. Buchanan, 170 N.C. App. 692, 695, 613 S.E.2d 356, 357 (2005) (“[0]ur Supreme Court [has] stated that this Court may not review an appeal that violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure even though such violations neither impede our comprehension of the issues nor frustrate the appellate process.”) See Viar v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation, 359 N.C. 400, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360-61 (2005).
In addition, Rule 10(c)(2) sets forth the specific requirements that a party must follow when challenging the instructions given to the jury. Plaintiff has made no such challenge in this instance, yet the majority has undertaken to opine that:
*152the trial court had a duty, without any specific request by the parties, to instruct the jury on the law as it applies to the substantive features of the case arising from the evidence. “ ‘This means, among other things, that the judge must submit to the jury such issues as when answered by them will resolve all material controversies between the parties.’ ”
Shields v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 106 N.C. App. 365, 370, 416 S.E.2d 597, 600 (1992) (citations omitted). However, as distinguished from the instant case, in Shields, the jury instructions were the central focus of this Court’s inquiry. Id. at 367, 416 S.E.2d at 599.
The issue of the jury instructions raised by the majority is squarely on point with our Supreme Court’s ruling in Durham v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 311 N.C. 361, 317 S.E.2d 372 (1984). In Durham, as in this case, the plaintiff failed to raise any objection to the court’s jury instructions at trial. Nor did the plaintiff in either case “make any assignment of error to the jury charge as given.” Id. at 367, 317 S.E.2d at 377. As noted by the Court, “[i]n order to preserve an issue for appellate review, there must be an exception in the record and the exception must be brought forward in an appropriate assignment of error.” Id. (citing N.C.R. App. P. 10). In contrast to the instant case, in which the majority has taken up this issue upon its own initiative, in Durham the jury instruction issue was raised at oral argument as an issue that merited “plain error” review. The Court explicitly declined to apply the doctrine of plain error in civil cases, a practice we have followed since the Durham decision. Id.; see In the Matter of L.M.C., 170 N.C. App. 676, 678, 613 S.E.2d 256, 257 (2005); Surratt v. Newton, 99 N.C. App. 396, 407, 393 S.E.2d 554, 560 (1990); Harris v. Scotland Neck Rescue Squad, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 444, 450, 331 S.E.2d 695, 700 (1985); Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, N.A. v. Guthrie, 67 N.C. App. 622, 626, 313 S.E.2d 603, 606 (1984).
In this case, out of the presence of the jury, the trial judge reviewed with counsel his proposed jury instructions and provided counsel for both parties with an opportunity to object and to request additional instructions. In relevant part, the colloquy between the court and plaintiff’s counsel reads as follows:
The COURT: Does the plaintiff have any objection to what I said I would give?
Mr. Unti: Your Honor, our only question is the amount of the damages^ because we think that the one half salary totals—
*153Ms. Smith: According to the document that Dr. Zahn testified about.
The COURT: I was taking him at his word. That’s what he testified.
Ms. Smith: The exact amount is $42,228.
The Court: Well, I will strike it. I will say that he contends that they owed him for the second and third year in a substantial sum, all right?
Mr. Unti: All right, your Honor.
The Court: With that is there any objection to what I have said I would give?
Mr. Unti: Not from the plaintiff.
The Court: Does the plaintiff wish to hand up any additional written instructions to what I said I would give?
Mr. Unti: Not additional instructions, your, Honor.
Thus, plaintiff’s sole concern about the instructions to be tendered by the court was resolved by the trial judge prior to the jury instructions being given in the presence of the jury. Moreover, plaintiff made no suggestion that the court add anything to the proposed instructions. As such and for all the reasons stated above, plaintiff may present no issue on the adequacy of the jury instructions before this Court.