Cited by

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167 (1992) (holding that any objections to statements made in closing in civil cases must be made “during or immediately after such opening or closing” (emphasis added)).

Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 459 (2003) (concluding that the plaintiff’s motion, filed nearly two months after the trial had concluded, was insufficient, as a matter of law, to preserve its argument regarding jury instructions for appellate review); Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 170 (1992) (“If an objection [to jury instructions] is first raised in a post- trial motion that is filed several days after the conclusion of the trial, the objection is not timely regardles

“Generally, a party should make an objection to evidence at the time it is offered, or at the earliest opportunity after the reason for objection becomes apparent.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 168 (1992).

With respect to a closing argument in a civil jury trial, any objection must be raised either during or immediately after the closing argument.

With respect to a closing argument in a civil jury trial, any objection must be raised either during or immediately after the closing argument.

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167 (1992) (stating, in civil case, objection to opposing counsel’s closing argument must be made during or immediately after such closing).

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167 (1992) (stating that, in a civil case, objection to closing argument must be made during or immediately after such closing).

State v. Williams, 142 N.H. 662, 669 (1998); Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 169 (1992).

A post-trial motion for reconsideration is not sufficiently timely to preserve an argument regarding an evidentiary ruling.

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167 (1992) (To preserve an objection to closing arguments, “an objection should be taken at the time the alleged improper statement is made, or within a reasonable time thereafter.” (quotation and ellipsis omitted)).

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 158-59, 162-63 (1992); O’Neill, 134 N.H. at 184-85; Glasper v. State, 914 So.

Keeler v. Banks, 145 N.H. 558, 559 (2000); Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 162 (1996).

*457 A. Jury Instruction “The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to inform the jury of the appropriate standards of law by which it is to resolve them.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163 (1992).

“The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to inform the jury of the appropriate standards of law by which it is to resolve them.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163 (1992).

“Conclusively against the weight of the evidence should be interpreted to mean that the verdict was one no reasonable jury could return.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 162 (1992) (quotations and brackets omitted).

In reviewing the instructions, we consider the jury charge as a whole to determine whether the instructions “fairly presented] the case to the jury in such a manner that no injustice [was] done to the legal rights of the litigants.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163 (1992) (quotation and citation omitted).

“The court cannot weigh the evidence or inquire into the credibility of the witnesses, and if the evidence adduced at trial is conflicting, or if several reasonable *449 inferences may be drawn, the motion should be denied.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 159, 614 A.2d 600, 604 (1992) (quotation omitted).

“A jury verdict may be set aside if it is conclusively against the weight of the evidence.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 162, 614 A.2d 600, 606 (1992).

“The test for determining whether an erroneous civil jury charge is reversible error is whether the jury could have been misled.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 164, 614 A.2d 600, 607 (1992) (quotation omitted).

A party is entitled to a directed verdict only “when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 159, 614 A.2d 600, 604 (1992).

We will set aside a jury verdict if it is “conclusively against the weight of the evidence” or “if it is the result of mistake, partiality, or corruption.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 162, 614 A.2d 600, 606 (1992).

While we agree this issue was not properly preserved, see Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 170, 614 A.2d 600, 610 (1992), we will address the merits of this issue because it is likely to arise at a new trial.

We review motions for directed verdicts under the same standard as motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict.

A jury charge is sufficient as a matter of law if it fairly presents the case to the jury such that no injustice is done to the legal rights of the parties.

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167-68, 614 A.2d 600, 609 (1992); State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 588-89, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992).

Conversely, we have treated issues as unpreserved when a litigant’s delay foreclosed effective remedial action by the trial court, see Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167-68, 614 A.2d 600, 609 (1992); State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 588-89, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992), and when the vagueness and generality of an objection failed to alert the trial court to the basis of the argument, see State v. Thaxton, 122 N.H. 1148, 1152, 455 A.2d 1016, 1018 (1982).

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 159, 614 A.2d 600, 604 (1992) (citations, quotation, and brackets omitted).

*806 If it considered the “failure to rebiopsy” theory to be an inappropriate matter for jury consideration, the defendant should have objected to any inclusion of or reference to such a theory in the court’s instructions.

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 164, 614 A.2d 600, 607-08 (1992) (“That the jury need not calculate damages if they do not find the defendant negligent is axiomatic.”); see also National Bank of Commerce v. Beavers, 802 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Ark.

“A party is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 159, 614 A.2d 600, 604 (1992).

The doctrine of negligence per se, on the other hand, provides that where a cause of action does exist at common law, the standard of conduct to which a defendant will be held may be defined as that required by statute, rather than as the usual reasonable person standard.

“Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are essentially the same, though made at different stages of the trial, and they are governed by identical standards.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 158, 614 A.2d 600, 604 (1992).

A jury verdict may be set aside if it is conclusively against the weight of the evidence or the result of mistake, partiality, or corruption.

“The purpose of jury instructions is to identify issues of material fact, and to inform the jury of the appropriate standards of law by which it is to resolve them.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163, 614 A.2d 600, 607 (1992).

A jury verdict may be set aside (1) if it is conclusively against the weight of the evidence, or (2) if it is the result of mistake, partiality, or corruption separate and apart from evidentiary considerations.

Therefore, we will not address it on appeal.

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163-64, 614 A.2d 600, 607 (1992); State v. Burrell, 135 N.H. 715, 717-18, 609 A.2d 751, 752-53 (1992).

Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 162, 614 A.2d 600, 606 (1992) (distinguishing between review for plain mistake and for a decision against the weight of the evidence); White Mountains Railroad v. Beane, 39 N.H. 107, 109 (1859) (“An award is not to be disturbed because the arbitrators have come to a mistaken conclusion upon a question of fact, upon

“A jury charge is sufficient as a matter of law if, taken as a whole, it fairly presents the case to the jury in such a manner that no injustice is done to the legal rights of *609 the litigants.” Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 163, 614 A.2d 600, 607 (1992) (quotations and brackets omitted).