Crawford v. Bon Marche, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Crawford v. Bon Marche, Inc.

540 So. 2d 376, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 346, 1989 WL 20603

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 28, 1989

DocketNo. 87 CA 1567

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 540 So. 2d 376 (Crawford v. Bon Marche, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawford v. Bon Marche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 376, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 346, 1989 WL 20603 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIN, Judge.

Maybel Crawford instituted this personal injury action against Bon Marche, Inc. and its insurer for injuries sustained when she allegedly slipped and fell on a foreign substance while walking through the mall. After trial on the merits special interrogatories were submitted to the jury. From a jury verdict in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. The primary issues on appeal are whether the failure to object to defects in proposed special interrogatories constitutes waiver of the objection and whether special interrogatory number one is statutorily defective, depriving plaintiff of a fair trial.

Plaintiff had the opportunity to object to the wording and form of special interrogatory number one but failed to do so. Under La.C.C.P. art. 1793(C) a party is prevented from assigning as error the giving or failure to give an instruction without objecting to the instruction. This article has been applied to special interrogatories. Levet v. Calais & Son, Inc., 514 So.2d 153 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987); But cf. Smith v. Tiblier, 374 So.2d 685 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ refused, 375 So.2d 646 (La.1979). Thus, by Crawford’s failure to timely object to the interrogatories she has waived her right to raise this issue on appeal. Having so decided we need not address the remaining issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRAIN, Judge.

Maybel Crawford instituted this personal injury action against Bon Marche, Inc. and its insurer for injuries sustained when she allegedly slipped and fell on a foreign substance while walking through the mall. After trial on the merits special interrogatories were submitted to the jury. From a jury verdict in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. The primary issues on appeal are whether the failure to object to defects in proposed special interrogatories constitutes waiver of the objection and whether special interrogatory number one is statutorily defective, depriving plaintiff of a fair trial.

Plaintiff had the opportunity to object to the wording and form of special interrogatory number one but failed to do so. Under La.C.C.P. art. 1793(C) a party is prevented from assigning as error the giving or failure to give an instruction without objecting to the instruction. This article has been applied to special interrogatories. Levet v. Calais & Son, Inc., 514 So.2d 153 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987); But cf. Smith v. Tiblier, 374 So.2d 685 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ refused, 375 So.2d 646 (La.1979). Thus, by Crawford’s failure to timely object to the interrogatories she has waived her right to raise this issue on appeal. Having so decided we need not address the remaining issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 376, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 346, 1989 WL 20603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-bon-marche-inc-lactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack