Court Opinion

ID: 9727689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:47:52.176892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:41.492388
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
*1124Instruction 5C was a part of Instruction 5 tendered by appellants. The record dis-cloges that the court had written the word "withdraws" next to 5C and 5C(1). The court crossed out 5C(2), (3) and (4) and wrote "no evidence" next to that part. Above "Plaintiff's Instruction No. 5 is written "give as modified." It also deleted certain words in that part which was given.
In his order the judge indicated he would give Instruction 5 as modified.
The appellant in dictating his objections to the instruction made the following statement:
"Plaintiff objects to the Court's refusal of Section C of Plaintiff's Instruction Number 5 as there was no instruction by the Court as to the burden of proof of any defense raised in a product liability action, and furthermore that Sub-paragraph C(1), (2) and (8) were proper statements of Indiana law."
Trial Rule 51(C) states: "The Court shall note all instructions given, refused or tendered...."
Thus the court was required to properly mark on all instructions those to be given and those to be refused.
The court properly followed TR. 51(C). If the record was not correct, it was incumbent upon the party who claims the same to be incorrect to take steps to provide this Court with a proper and correct record.
The record in this case clearly shows that 5C was withdrawn by the plaintiff and thus presents no issue for appellate review.
The trial court should be affirmed.
OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
Defendants Anthes Industries, Ltd., and Chicago Contractors Supply, Inc., petition ﬁgs-wearing of the opinion appearing at
Both of the Defendants agree with Judge Hoffman's dissent and contend that because the record shows that the Plaintiff had withdrawn Tendered Instruction 5(c), Part I-A of the opinion is erroneous.
It is correct that the words "plaintiff withdraws" are written next to paragraph (c) of Plaintiff's Tendered Instruction 5 (see Record at Volume 5, page 1093-94). While it can be assumed that the trial judge did indeed write those words (in fact, in its petition for rehearing, Anthes submitted an affidavit from the trial judge stating that he had), the record on appeal did not show that he actually had, or, what had transpired between counsel and the judge at the time the instruction was tendered.
By agreement, objections to instructions were not stated to the judge until the jury retired to deliberate. Court records show that the Plaintiff objected at that time to the refusal of the court to give paragraph (c) of her Tendered Instruction 5 (Record at Volume 5, page 1194). (The specific objection is shown in the Appendix Brief, page 29.) The objection was also raised in her Motion to Correct Errors (Record at Volume 1, pages 11-12) and in the Appellant's Brief (page 44).
Even if the Plaintiff did waive her objection to the court's refusal to give Tendered Instruction 5(c), she did not waive her objection to the court's refusal to instruct the jury that a monforeseeable misuse acting concurrently with an unreasonably dangerous condition is not a defense. This is so because she also objected to the court's refusal to give her Tendered Instruction 3 regarding what affirmative defenses were available (see instruction at page 38 of Appendix Brief) and she objected to the court's instruction 29 defining misuse. In fact, she specifically argued at trial that instruction 29 failed to state the proposition underlined above (see page 27, Appendix Brief). Any of these instructions-Tendered Instructions 8 or 5(c) or Given Instruction 20-would have been an appropriate vehicle for stating that proposition. Because the Plaintiff's objections regarding these instructions were overlapping, we chose to address her objections to Tendered Instruction 5(c).1
ROBERTSON, J., concurs.
HOFFMAN, J., would grant without opinion.

. In Footnote 2 on page 1116 of the opinion, we state that Given Instruction 29 was a proper statement of Indiana law and that the substance of Plaintiff's Tendered Instruction 3 was covered in the court's instructions 26, 28, and 29. We made those statements once we had determined that the trial court should have given Tendered Instruction 5(c).