Berliner v. Clukay, No. 2002-481 (N.H. 9/30/2003)

• Decision Date: 30 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2002-481.,2002-481.
• Parties: WILLIAM BERLINER v. CRAIG CLUKAY d/b/a TREELINE TIMBER.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 80

WILLIAM BERLINER v. CRAIG CLUKAY d/b/a TREELINE TIMBER.

No. 2002-481.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Grafton.

Argued: May 7, 2003.

Opinion Issued: September 30, 2003.

1. Appeal and Error—Preservation of Questions—Failure to Make Specific Objections

A chambers discussion directed at persuading the court to craft or utilize a proposed instruction, without more, or to adopt a specific view of the applicable law does not constitute a "specific, contemporaneous objection."

2. Appeal and Error—Preservation of Questions—Failure to Make Specific Objections

Exchange of views on the law, however cogent or well-intentioned, cannot substitute for a formal objection, unless an objection is plainly expressed.

3. Trespass—Trespass to Realty—Particular Cases

Defendant failed in his argument that the trial court's award for statutory damages for his violation of the timber trespass statute was tainted by the court's erroneous preclusion of mitigation testimony, because, even assuming that his feelings of remorse and regret had some relevance to his state of mind at the time he harvested the plaintiff's timber, he testified to his after-the-fact feelings prior to the plaintiff's objection and he identified no

Page 81

testimony which he sought to admit that differed in kind or quality from that which he in fact introduced. RSA 227-J:8.

4. Trespass—Trespass to Realty—Particular Cases

In an action arising from defendant's unlawful harvesting of trees from the plaintiff's property, defendant failed in his challenge to the loss of use award on the basis that the jury verdict was internally inconsistent where the special verdict form expressly advised the jury that it could award compensatory damages for loss of use in addition to any award provided for either diminution in land value or replanting costs and he never alerted the trial court to the possibility that the verdict form, as followed, could result in an alleged inconsistent verdict.

5. Trespass—Trespass to Realty—Particular Cases

In an action arising from defendant's unlawful harvesting of trees from the plaintiff's property, defendant failed in his challenge to the damages awarded to repair the road leading to the property where testimony revealed: that the base of the road was previously used for logging; that the remainder of the road appeared to be virtually unused; that the entire road was passable by vehicle without use of four-wheel drive; that, after defendant's trespass, the road was...