Defense counsel failed to preserve a claim of improper argument for plaintiff's counsel where defendant failed to advance in the trial court the specific ground of objection.

The Supreme Court found that the District Court erred in granting a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument. During closing argument, plaintiff's counsel began to argue that the defendant-doctor had failed to provide appropriate post-operative care. The physician's counsel objected to the line of argument on the basis that there was no evidence to support this argument. The court overruled the objection, and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was returned. The Supreme Court held that the physician's attorney's objection did not articulate his concern that post-operative negligence had not been plead or tried with the requisite specificity to inform the trial court of the perceived error.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010