Opinion
Sept. 1, 1970
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
John Perrott, Berthoud, for plaintiffs in error.
Rucker & Venable, Edward Olin Venable, Greeley, for defendant in error.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs in error (plaintiffs) seek reversal of a judgment dismissing their complaint in a personal injury case. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant, upon which the judgment was entered.
Plaintiffs assert as error the trial court's refusal to give six tendered instructions and further that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
The record shows that there were no objections to the instructions as given and that plaintiffs did not object to the refusal to give their tendered instructions. Therefore, the alleged error pertaining to the instructions cannot be considered by this court. R.C.P.Colo. 51 reads, in pertinent part,
'When any party desires special instructions, they shall be numbered and tendered to the court in duplicate, the original being unsigned. All instructions shall be submitted to the parties, who shall make all objections thereto before they are given to the jury. Only the grounds so specified shall be considered on motion for a new trial or on writ of error.'
This rule is the codification of the decisions of the Supreme Court dating from its earliest opinions. In Portland Gold Mining Co. v. O'Hara, 45 Colo. 416, 101 P. 773, the court, after holding that objections to the refusal to give tendered instructions could not be raised in the first instance upon motion for new trial or upon appeal, stated,
'The trial court should have its attention called to the particular instruction desired at the time it was offered, for the purpose of deciding, at the proper time, whether or not it should be given or refused, and, when objections are made, the reasons should be assigned therefor.'
Failure of plaintiffs to object and specify the grounds therefor precludes any consideration of the alleged error by this court.
The record discloses that the verdict was amply supported by the evidence. As was stated in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Reich, 131 Colo. 407, 282 P.2d 1091,
'There is ample evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury which determined the facts under proper instructions as to the law; therefore, the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed, and accordingly it is affirmed.'
The judgment is affirmed.
DWYER and DUFFORD, JJ., concur.