01-4026 R.J. O'Brien & Associates, Inc. v. Forman

Listen to this article

“The problem RJO and Longworth face is that their claim that Longworth might not fit under the exception was not raised at trial. There was no objection to the jury instruction on negligent misrepresentation or to giving such an instruction in the first place. The case proceeded as if there was no problem with Forman’s tort recovery theory. That is, in the district judge’s words, the way the case ‘was argued and proved by the parties.'”

“Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could not be clearer. It says in part, ‘No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.’ Just recently, in Chestnut v. Hall, 284 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2002), we again pointed out that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 requires not only that ‘objections to jury instructions be made in a timely fashion and on the record, but also with sufficient specificity to apprise the district court of the legal and factual bases for any perceived defect.’ We also reiterated that, unlike in a criminal trial, there is no plain error analysis in a civil trial. That RJO and Longworth had every opportunity to object to the jury instructions… The parties had an obligation to inform the judge at trial of their legal position on that claim. We will not make an end run around the failure to object to the jury instructions.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Moody, J., Evans, J.