 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IMT Insurance v. Sayer12/8/2004
onable belief that he had permission to do so from the owner or apparent owner of the vehicle. "Reasonable belief" means what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances. An apparent owner of a vehicle is either: (a) a person whom a reasonable person would consider to be the actual owner of a vehicle; or, (b) a person whom a reasonable person would believe has the consent of the actual owner to grant permission to others to operate a vehicle.
Appellants assert that Zachary clearly would be considered the apparent owner of the vehicle and that submitting this issue to the jury would only confuse the jury. Appellants claim they were prejudiced by the submission of the issue of apparent ownership to the jury.
The insurance companies claim appellants failed to preserve error on this issue by objecting to the instruction. The record includes a lengthy discussion by the parties concerning this jury instruction. Counsel for the Hansel and Smith estates agreed to the instruction, but wanted to add a new subsection, so the definition of apparent owner would include (c) "one in lawful possession." The district court rejected the language regarding lawful possession, and it was not included in the instruction. Counsel then objected to "that portion of the instruction which we believe should be included with respect to one who is in lawful possession." At the end of the discussion of jury instructions, counsel renewed "the previous objection that we've made with regard to definition of one who is the apparent owner." Counsel for the Sherman estate joined in the objection.
Issues regarding jury instructions should be preserved by a specific objection. Boham v. City of Sioux City, 567 N.W.2d 431, 437 (Iowa 1997); see also Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.924 (noting an objection to jury instruction should specify "the matter objected to and on what grounds"). The objection should be sufficiently specific to alert the trial court to the basis of the complaint. Lynch v. Saddler, 656 N.W.2d 104, 110-11 (Iowa 2003). Unless a specific objection is made, an issue may not be raised on appeal. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.924. A party may not amplify or change the grounds for objecting to a jury instruction. Sievers v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 581 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Iowa 1998).
We conclude the appellants' objections to the jury instruction before the district court are not the same objections they are now raising on appeal. We conclude appellants have failed to preserve error as to the issues they now seek to raise on appeal. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|