Defendant were found to be negligent per se by virtue of violating a safety regulation. However, the Defendant neither objected to the absence of an instruction on the effect of the jury’s finding negligence per se nor requested such an instruction. This Court has long recognized that the omission of a jury instruction is not reversible error if the party complaining of the error on appeal failed to request an appropriate instruction from the trial judge. See, e.g., Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tenn.1978) (“The trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury respecting contributory negligence and assumption of risk, since the defendants made no request at trial for such instructions.”); Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Wynn, 88 Tenn. 320, 14 S.W. 311, 314 (1890) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Defendant has not identified
holding that failure to try issue made instruction on that issue reversible error holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error holding that because the jury instructions were not improper the failure of petitioners trial counsel to object or request an additional instruction was not objectively unreasonable holding that trial courts failure to provide additional instructions as to plaintiffs burden of proof in negligence case was not reversible error there having been no proper and accurate request for such instruction