"‘[A] party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial.’ Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So. 2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). If an objection to a jury charge is properly preserved for review on appeal, this Court will ’look to the entirety of the trial court’s charge to see if there was reversible error.’
An incorrect, misleading, erroneous, or prejudicial charge may form the basis for granting a new trial. See, Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1989). However, the refusal of a requested, written instruction, although a correct statement of the law, is not cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the trial court's oral charge.
Citing Williams v. Woodman, 424 So.2d 611, 613 (Ala. 1982), Williams contends that this charge improperly permitted the jury to find in favor of BIC, notwithstanding that it may have found BIC to have been negligent, where a third party, and not the plaintiff, may also be guilty of negligence that contributes to cause the injury. Williams also maintains that this charge violates the rule that prevents the negligence of a parent from being imputed to the child. See Pilkington v. Peking Chinese Restaurant, 596 So.2d 586, 589 (Ala. 1992); Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989); Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236, 249 (1975). In BIC II, an action against BIC arising out of personal injury and death that occurred as a result of children's playing with a butane lighter, this Court wrote:
"`A party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial.'" Cain v. Mortgage Realty Co., 723 So.2d 631, 633 (Ala. 1998) (quoting Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). "`Reversal is warranted only when the error is considered to be prejudicial.'"Id.
It is true that parties are "entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial." Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). However, the trial court found sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to the existence of an accord and satisfaction or a release, and such evidence would also support the trial judge's decision to give jury instructions on the law of accord and satisfaction and release.
In Alabama "[a] party is entitled to proper jury instructions regarding the issues presented, and an incorrect or misleading charge may be the basis for the granting of a new trial." Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766, 767 (Ala. 1989). If an objection to a jury charge is properly preserved for appeal, this Court will "look to the entirety of the trial court's charge to see if there was reversible error." Nelms v. Allied Mills Co., 387 So.2d 152, 155 (Ala. 1980).
An incorrect or misleading instruction may serve as a ground for ordering a new trial. Nunn v. Whitworth, 545 So.2d 766 (Ala. 1989). Rule 51, Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in part: