Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)

Citation
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Parent Document
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2018-02-06

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text

885 chars
A general objection that a particular instruction is unsupported by sufficient evidence does not preserve a claim that the plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a particular element of the claim. In the Sparkman case, defense counsel objected to a damages instruction " 'on the basis that there has been insufficient evidence to support it.' " 271 S.W.3d at 624. Despite the general nature of the objection at trial, on appeal the defendant sought to make a far more specific objection: that the damages instruction failed to correctly advise the jury as to the date from which prejudgment interest should be calculated, or the principal amount on which prejudgment interest could be awarded. Id. at 623-24. The Southern District held that the defendant's general objection at trial did not preserve the specific issues the defendant sought to raise on appeal: