WPCZ *J|[EpdMʤ= :-;H0ש:~ڑ ?"ƙ/BN6d;% ,(l׍;"zvpó@ `FrxnUlw&D?EMB*•.$f3Wgj1md Usvj+ީ5/ ݬ[Os߅ Vz7 hNra êA'1.y^'L.N)t] A+^ Sa{ :pQ,dOAlu~Ds9Y~iɪ{pw^3/,xhH[  SefyӄG-e5/c6!H•n-#( % 0D 0(3U:[ 0UNnTlNUFU>^ FwR4VjyE{f}a mNMM 0c 0 0 0 0D: 0D~U.NU6U> 01, 0=] B`U*}m3 UL UJE! C! B-! 0!UN" 1"fs#au# 1u# 1# 0>$ 0 c$ 00&% 0V% 0P &ULp& 0w& 03' 0' 0]( 0) 0) 0*UT+ 0+U4, 0, 0a- 0D- 07. 0. 09/UB/ 00 021 0F1 0:B2 0|2 0_3 0 `3 0kj4 05 B*7 D37 07 09 06: 0K: 0(; D+0< 0:[< 0h< AY< 0FV= 0F= A=N>b>U0>U> 1ANA 72A 72A 1 BNBNB AB 1C 72CNC 72C 1D 72DND^DE(H 72IDIbKKMObOOMTmUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0DZHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<4-s 2{)-Q y File3|xTABLE AU HR0_Style1TraditionalFXXXXF =W XXMemoFXX  =W  1XXXX1XXXX FXXXXF =W XX JR0_Style2Contemporary*34ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,P ,( +  ,"  h,<XXXX<L!MXXinteroffice<XXML! D  1' h 1DXXXXDXXMEMORANDUMDXX hD  +.h + '/. '-#!   / -1XXXX1XXXX <XXXX<L!MXX JF`-0_Style3CosmopolitandA/)8 0*dE80*AA')8dE8A-X XXX-4F 4 XXMemorandum  14s 4 44F1XX 44s d-X XXX-4F 4 XX @l0_Style4Elegant  ,XXXX,XXMemorandum,XX    ,XXXX   ,XXXX,XX (3$ !  (3$ !  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5<6X9`(Courier<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman0.Normal<:Definition TLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d%2A`ArialLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5r@F Z4Humanst521 Lt BT LightKqZ 2OzHandicraft BT Romandd)Hairline d<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#8x9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular8=>?@ABCh6'G_cgkosw{Smiley FaceSmiley FaceHTABLE B3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)9=>?@ABC R57;AGOW_eb1a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)1)a)86Definition(;3$2#  0  .3  0  0.bullet('z&H1      XXX((3/Q$ !   d @FAZ4Swis721 BlkEx BT Black(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#M@AZ<EngraversGothic BT Regular(o&H2  XXXMyAArial Bold(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(3$ !  (o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi8aaCF6Blockquote , ,E1` hp x (#XE , ,E1` hp x (#XE,*CITE,dl*CODEK"<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K"<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K"<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of IX.4$ ** ddI  B    ?(%2A`Arial?9^.*  dd9  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dWWWW'dxd<:zTop of ForIX.4$** ddI  B    ?(%2A`Arial?9^.*  dd9  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong ( $ Figure  1  8dl6TypewriterK"<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS'dxd42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      +Ic^M << deUU2 0CommentB  (n$ (  1  ) I\^&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK- -<\( 9Z+Courier  K u$      1    _TheCityoriginallyappealedfromthedenialofitsMay25  motion.OnJune5,2000,theCityfiledanadditionalmotionfor x anewtrialonthegroundofinconsistentverdicts.Thatmotion @ wasdenied,andtheCityreneweditsnoticeofappeal.Thedenial X oftheJune5motionisnolongeratissueinthisappeal,andwe   consolidatedthesetwoappealsonAugust24,2000.(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.iA.5i)0CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.Iy  <<= 8C(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.mA.qA.)CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.uA.L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT  u$      2    _Thisissobyjudicialconstructioninthiscircuit.Davis  v._Rennie_,264F.3d86,10001(1stCir.2001),cert.denied,122 x  S.Ct.1909(2002);seealso9AWright&Miller,FederalPractice  &Procedure,2558,at462&n.11(2ded.1995).Thatruleis x currentlybeingamendedtomakethisreservationclear,see @ AdvisoryCommitteeontheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,Report X oftheCivilRulesAdvisoryCommittee6268(March14,2001,   revisedJul.31,2001),bringingRule51inlinewiththenormal  practiceinthecaseofothererrors,e.g.,Fed.R._Evid_.103(d).5i)  u$      3    _gX3XXXTheapproachthatwehavefollowedinqualifiedimmunity  casesseemstoaccordwiththeapproachinoursistercircuits.#X3XXgX3q# X3XXX3 x See,e.g.,Kellyv.CityofOakland,198F.3d779,78485(9thCir. @ 1999)(examiningalatefiledqualifiedimmunitydefenseonthe X meritsundertheplainerrorstandard).#X3XX X3A#gX3XXX3Ԁ- -  u$      4    _Thoughplaintiffwouldbestrippedofhispunitivedamages  awardiftheCityisallowedtoassertitsmunicipalimmunity x defenseonappeal,thatprejudiceisnotthetypecontemplatedby @ thisfactor.Rather,weexaminewhethertheplaintiffwouldsuffer X anyproceduralunfairnessifweaddresstheomittedissue.See   Harwood,69F.3dat629(statingthatplaintiffswouldnotsuffer  any"specialprejudiceorinequity"byaddressingtheomitted `  issue,despitethefactthatreachingtheissueonappealmeant ( x thattheinjunctionthatplaintiffsobtainedinthelowercourt  @ wouldbevacated).- -  u$      5    _ԀConsistentwiththatview,gX3XXXfederalcourtsinothercontexts  haverefusedtoallowpublicentitiestobelatedlyraisean x affirmativedefensetodamages,notwithstandingtheimpacton @ innocenttaxpayers.See,e.g.,Bentleyv.ClevelandCountyBd.of X County_Comm'rs_.,41F.3d600,60405(10thCir.1994)(concluding   thatcounty,havingfailedtoraiseaffirmativedefenseof$100,000  statutorydamagescapindiscriminationsuituntilafter$157,000 `  verdictwasrendered,forfeiteditsrighttothatdefense); ( x _Ingraham_v.UnitedStates,808F.2d1075,1079(5thCir.1987)  @ (barringgovernmentfrombelatedlyraisingstatutorycaponmedical    malpracticedamages).#X3XXgX3# X3XXX3#X3XX X3v#  u$      6    ݀ThereisnosuggestionintherecordthatChestnut'scounsel  knowinglymisrepresentedtheavailabilityofpunitivedamagesto x thecourt.Iftherewassuchaknowingmisrepresentation,this @ wouldbeanentirelydifferentcase. c u$      7    _ԀButseeWilliamsv.Butler,746F.2d431,44344(8thCir.  1984)(affirmingdistrictcourtdecisiontosetaside1983 x punitivedamagesawarddespitefailuretoobjecttopunitive @ damagesinstructionattrial),on_reh'g_,762F.2d73(8thCir. X 1985)(enbanc),vacatedonothergroundssubnom.CityofLittle   Rockv.Williams,475U.S.1105(1986),onremand,Williamsv.  Butler,802F.2d296(8thCir.1986)(enbanc),vacatedonother `  groundssubnom.CityofLittleRockv.Williams,485U.S.931 ( x (1988),onremandWilliamsv.Butler,863F.2d1398(8thCir.1988)  @ (enbanc),cert.denied,CityofLittleRockv.Williams,492U.S.    906(1989).<>>f7:Footnote TexXX XX  !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XuYXXX%XXuY     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsd%  FortheFirstCircuit  d X5X   A') ` dE< ` A    X3XX X5Nos.001840 K  Ѐ001996  c @hh#CRAIGCHESTNUT,    @<< Plaintiff,Appellee, 3  @tt)v.   @hh#CITYOFLOWELL, S  @ Defendant,Appellant. 3 A') ` dE<r` A s @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICT_OCURT_Ԉ J @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS * @ [Hon.RyaW._Zobel_,U.S.DistrictJudge] j A') ` dE<` A J @'Before !   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, a  TorruellaandSelya,CircuitJudges, )y! Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge, A" Lynch,LipezandHoward,CircuitJudges.  # A') ` dE<"` A "a&       ThomasE.Sweeney,CitySolicitor,withwhomChristineP. "8( O'Connor,AssistantCitySolicitor,wasonbriefforappellant. #)   DanielS.SharpwithwhomElaine_Whitfield_ԀSharp,_Whitfield_ x$* SharpandSharpandRandyM.Hitchcockwereonbriefforappellee. @% + *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  & "-& "   0&4'". 0ENBANCOPINION 'L#0 September20,2002 ($1  0&!)$2" 0(4'"3  (  * !   ,d'5? _  8M3MXXdd8f*,X` XX* ` PerCuriam .DefendanttheCityofLowell("City"),  claimingimmunitytopunitivedamagesunderCityofNewportv.Fact @ Concerts,Inc.,453U.S.247(1981),appealsfromajudgmentof   punitivedamagesinasuitfiledunder42U.S.C.1983(2000).A `  dividedpanelofthiscourtaffirmedonMarch29,2002,agreeing  @ withthedistrictcourtthattheCity'sobjectionhadbeenwaived.    Wevacatedthepanelopinionpendingrehearingenbanc,andnow `  reverse.Thefactstakeninthelightmosthospitabletothe   verdictwinner,Nat'lAss'nofSoc.Workersv.Harwood,69F.3d 0  622,625(1stCir.1995),areasfollows.   ` OnFebruary7,1997,CraigChestnutandhiswifewentto P abarinLowell,Massachusetts.CitypoliceofficersStevenCoyle 0 andStephenCiavolawerealsopresentwhenChestnutbecame p embroiledinafracas.CoylearrestedandhandcuffedChestnutand P removedhimfromthebar,whereuponCiavolastruckChestnutinthe  face,knockedhimtothegroundandkickedhimintheface.Asa  p resultofCiavola'sviolentconduct,Chestnutrequiredfourteen   stitchesaroundhisrighteye,whichispermanentlydamaged.This @" injuryimpairsChestnut'slongrangedepthperceptionandprecludes  $ himfromearningalivingasacraneoperator,ashedid `"& previously. #@(  ` Chestnutfiledsuitunder42U.S.C.1983togetherwith % * supplementalstatelawnegligenceclaimsagainsttheCity,Coyle '`", andCiavola,alleginginteraliathat(1)Ciavolausedexcessive (#. forceagainsthim;(2)Coyle,afterhavingtakenChestnutinto 0*%0 policecustody,failedtoprotecthim;and(3)theCityimproperly +'2 hiredandretainedCiavola,whohadanextensivecriminalrecord  (includingconvictionsforassaultandbattery)andwas,atthe @ timeofhire,thesubjectofanactivearrestwarrantforfailure   toappearincourtforviolatinghisprobation. `   ` Asthetrialdrewtoaclose,thedistrictcourthelda  @ conferencewiththeattorneysonMay22,2000todiscussjury    instructionsandtheverdictform,whichincludedaquestionon `  punitivedamages.Thecourtraisedwithcounselthe   appropriatenessofapunitivedamagesawardundersection1983. 0  Chestnut'sattorneyrepliedthatsuchanawardwasappropriate,and  theCity'scounseldidnotrespondtothejudge'sinquiryortake P issuewithopposingcounsel'sresponse.Induecourse,thetrial 0 judgeinstructedthejury,withoutobjection,thatitcouldaward p punitivedamagesagainsteachdefendant,includingtheCity,asto P thesection1983claim.   ` OnMay23,thejuryreturnedaverdictforChestnuton  p boththegX3XX X3Ԁnegligenceandsection1983countsagainstCiavolaandthe   City.ThejurydidnotfindCoyleliableoneithercount# X3XXgX3y#;it @" awardedChestnut$750,000indamages:$500,000inpunitivedamages  $ againsttheCity,$40,000inpunitivedamagesagainstCiavola,and `"& $210,000incompensatorydamagesagainstbothofthesedefendants #@( jointlyandseverally.Thedistrictcourtenteredjudgment,again % * withoutobjectionfromtheCity. '`",  ` FinallyawakeningtoitsoversightofCityofNewporton (#. May25,theCityfiledamotionforanewtrial,or,inthe 0*%0 alternative,tostrikethe$500,000ofpunitivedamages.Ata +'2 motionhearingonJuly12,2000,thedistrictcourt,rulingfrom  thebench,deniedtheCity'smotion.Althoughrecognizingthatan @ awardofpunitivedamagesagainstamunicipalitywasindeederror   inlightofCityofNewport,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthe `  City'sfailuretointerposeatimelyobjectionunderFed.R.Civ.  @ P.51waiveditsimmunity.Theseappealsfollowed.h #  1           ` Inrelyingupon"waiver,"thedistrictcourtassuredly `  didnotmeanthattheCityknowinglyrelinquisheditsimmunity   underCityofNewporttopunitivedamages;thereisnoevidence 0  whatsoeverthattheCityscounselknewofCityofNewport.  Rather,thedistrictjudgeclearlymeant,inthetermusedin P UnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S.725,733(1993),thattheCityhad 0 "forfeited"itsobjectionthroughignoranceorneglect.Although p mostjudges,andmanySupremeCourtdecisions,continuetousethe P term"waiver"tocoverbothsituations,thedistinctionis  importantinthiscaseandwewillfollowOlanosconventionin  p thisinstance.    ` Failurestoobject,unlessatruewaiverisinvolved,are @" almostalwayssubjecttoreviewforplainerror.Thisissoeven  $ inthecaseofjuryinstructionswhereRule51'scurrentlanguage `"& suggestsotherwise.y@ #  2      ׀However,evenincriminalcases,the #@( requirementsforplainerror,setoutinOlanoitself,507U.S.at  73236,areextremelydemanding;andinthiscircuit,itisrare @ indeedforapaneltofindplainerrorinacivilcase.Still,   thiscaseatfirstblushmeetstheOlanorequirements:error, `  plainness,prejudice,andmiscarriageofjusticeorsomethingakin  @ toit.     ` Thedistrictcourtitselfacknowledgedtheerror,its `  plainnessisamplydemonstratedbyacontrarySupremeCourt   precedentonpoint(namely,CityofNewport)thathasbeenonthe 0  booksforovertwentyyears.Prejudiceinthesenseofaffecting  thefinaloutcomeisalsoobvious:hadthejurybeeninstructedas P totheCity'simmunity,therealmostcertainlywouldnotbea 0 $500,000judgmentagainstittoday,althoughconceivablythejury p mighthavesomewhatincreasedthecompensatorydamages. P  ` Thisalsoappearstobetherarecivilcasewherethe  miscarriageofjusticerequirementismet.Importantly,theerror  p wascausedbytheplaintiffaswellasthedefendant.Plaintiff's   counsel,quiteerroneously,representedtothedistrictcourtat @" thechargeconferencethatpunitivedamageswerepermissible  $ againstamunicipality.Thisdoesnotexcusethenegligenceofthe `"& Cityscounselbutitdoesmeanthatresponsibilityforthemistake #@( issharedasomewhatunusualcircumstance. % *  ` Further,evenwithoutpunitivedamages,theplaintiffis  stillentitledtofullactualdamages,whichinthiscaseare @ substantial.Norneedsuchdamagesbereducedbyattorneysfees   becauseundersection1983suchfeesareseparatelyawarded.42 `  U.S.C.1988(2000).Punitivedamagesare,inthissense,a  @ windfallandonethatherewouldcomeattheexpenseofinnocent    taxpayersoftheCity,theveryonesforwhosebenefitCityof `  Newportadoptedtherulegivingmunicipalitiessuchanimmunity.   453U.S.at267. 0   ` ThemainhitchwiththeplainerrordoctrineisthatCity  ofNewportdescribedtheprotectionagainstpunitivedamagesasan P "immunity,"ratherthanasa"rule"forbiddingpunitivedamages. 0 Accordingly,asanimmunityneednotbeasserted,onecouldargue p thattheinstructionwasnot"error"atall,letalone"plain P error."Astate,afterall,canwaivesovereignimmunity.  CertainlyifcounselfortheCityhadstoodupandsaidthatthe  p Citypreferredtofacepunitivedamages,itcouldhardlycomplain   ifthejudgetooktheCityatitsword. @"  ` Still,thisissurelyamatterofformoversubstance.  $ Forallpracticalpurposes,thedistrictcourtmadeanerror,and `"& thedistrictcourtitselfacknowledgedasmuch.Ifthedistrict #@( judgehaddiscoveredNewportonherownthenightbeforethe % * instructions,itishardlylikelythatshewouldhaveauthorized '`", punitivedamages.Andalthoughastatemightsometimeschooseto (#.  waivesovereignimmunityforpolicyreasons,hopingtowinonthe 0*%0 merits,onecanhardlyimagineacompetentlawyerchoosingtowaive  protectionagainstpunitivedamages. @   ` Thisrealisticviewisnotwithoutprecedent.In   O'Connorv.Huard,117F.3d12(1stCir.1997),cert.denied,522 `  U.S.1047(1998),wereviewedforplainerrorthedefendant's  @ defenseofqualifiedimmunity,raisedforthefirsttimeafterthe    entryofjudgment.Inapplyingtheplainerroranalysis,wedid `  notfindthatthedefendantforfeitedherimmunitybyher   proceduraldefault,butratherdeniedreliefonthelackof 0  evidence.Id.at17.Wetreatedalatefiledinterpositionof  qualifiedimmunityinthesamefashioninLewisv.Kendrick,944 P F.2d949,953(1stCir.1991).Seealsoid.at956(Breyer,C.J., 0 concurring).| #  3       p  ` Ofcourse,evenifthedoctrineofplainerrorwerenot P strictlyapplicable,itissettledinthiscircuitthat"an  appellatecourthasdiscretion,inanexceptionalcase,toreach  p virginissues,"thatis,torelieveapartyofapriorforfeiture.   UnitedStatesv.LaGuardia,902F.2d1010,1013(1stCir.1990). @" RecentlywedescribedpertinentfactorsinHarwood,69F.3dat627  $ 29(relievingforfeitureoflegislativeimmunity);mostofthose `"& factorsarepresenthereand,althoughthiscase,unlikeHarwood, #@( doesnotinvolveaconstitutionalissue,neitherdidHarwood % * disregardagoverningandplainlyapplicableSupremeCourt '`", precedent.SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Krynicki,689F.2d289,291  92(1stCir.1982).  TheCityassertsthatweshouldsimplystrike @ thepunitivedamagesaward,holdingtheactualdamagesaward   intact.Probably,thejurysactualdamagesawardwasuninfluenced `  bythelargepunitives;butgiventhattheCitybearsmuchofthe  @ blameforanyuncertainty,wethinkonremanditshouldbethe    plaintiffsoptionwhethertohaveanewtrialonactualdamages `  againsttheCity(butnotagainstCiavola)atrialinwhich   plaintiffsattorneysfeeswillbebornebytheCity.See42 0  U.S.C.1988(2000).Thedistrictcourtshallsetatimewithin  whichtheplaintiffmaymakesuchanelection. P  ` Thejudgmentinsofarasitawardspunitivedamages 0 againsttheCityisvacatedandthematterisremandedforfurther p proceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.Eachsidewill P bearitsowncostsonthisappeal.   ` Itissoordered.  p ̀Concurrencefollows󀄀   $ }f ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge(Concurring). ThoughIarrive  atthesamedestinationasthemajority,Ichooseanalternative  routetogettherearoutewhich,inmyview,isbothless  p conceptuallytroublingandbettersupportedbyexistingprecedent.    ` Contrarytothemajorityopinion,Idonotthinkthat @  thiscasecanberesolvedbyrelyingontheplainerrordoctrine.    gX3XX X3Takentogether,thefirsttwoprongsoftheplainerrorstandard `  requiretheappellanttodemonstratethatanobviouserroroflaw @  occurred.SeeOlano,507U.S.at73236.Themajority,the   parties,andthedistrictcourtareoftheviewthatitisa ` foregoneconclusionthatsuchanerroroccurredhere.Their  steadfastbeliefrestsontheassumptionthatthedistrictcourt's 0 juryinstruction,whichmadepunitivedamagesavailableagainstthe  City,directlycontradictedtheSupremeCourt'sholdinginCityof P Newport.Accordingtothem,CityofNewportessentiallystandsfor 0 thepropositionthatpunitivedamagesareunavailableagainsta p municipalityunder1983. P   ` Notwithstandingtheirbelief,however,CityofNewport " neverheldthatpunitivedamagesareunavailableina1983action  !p$ againstamunicipality.Rather,theSupremeCourtruledthat"a "& municipalityisimmunefrompunitivedamagesunder1983."City @$( ofNewport,453U.S.at271(emphasisadded);accordSaldaa % !* Snchezv.L;pezGerena,256F.3d1,11(1stCir.2001) `'", (characterizingCityofNewportasholdingthat"asageneralrule, (@$. municipalitiesareimmunefrompunitivedamagesjudgmentswhensued *%0 under1983").Althoughthisdistinctionmayappear ,`'2 inconsequential,itisrathersignificantinlightofthe  circumstancesofthiscase.IftheSupremeCourthadheldthat @ punitivedamageswereunavailableagainstamunicipalityina   1983suit,thenaplaintiffwouldbefilingafrivolouscomplaint `  werehetosueforsuchdamages.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.11(b)(2)  @ (requiringthattheclaimsinaparty'scomplaintbe"warrantedby    existinglaw").However,theSupremeCourt'sholdingthat `  municipalitiesare"immune"frompunitivedamagesunder1983has   slightlydifferentimplications.Immunity,whetherqualifiedor 0  absolute,isanaffirmativedefensethatcanbeforfeited,ifnot  assertedinatimelymanner,orwaived.SeeCozzov.Tangipahoa P ParishCouncilPresidentGov't,279F.3d273,283(5thCir.2002) 0 (rulingthatabsoluteimmunityisanaffirmativedefensethatis p forfeitedifnotpleaded);GuzmnRiverav.RiveraCruz,98F.3d P 664,667(1stCir.1996)("Sinceimmunitymustbeaffirmatively  pleaded,itfollowsthatfailuretodosocanworkasawaiverof  p thedefense.");O'Neillv.Krzeminski,839F.2d9,13(2dCir.   1988)(holdingthatamunicipality'sindemnificationagreementwith @" defendantconstitutedawaiverofitsmunicipalimmunitydefense);  $ Bellv.CityofMilwaukee,746F.2d1205,127172(7thCir.1984) `"& (holdingthatstateindemnificationstatutewaivedmunicipal #@( immunitydefensewithrespecttoindemnifiedjudgments).Thus, % * whereasunavailabilityimpliesalimitationondamagesaltogether, '`", immunity,inthedoctrinalsense,isadefensethatcanbe (#.  forfeitedorwaived. 0*%0  ` Infact,inSaldaaSnchez,weallowedaplaintiffto   seekdiscoveryagainstamunicipalityontheclaimthatthecity @ hadwaiveditsmunicipalimmunitydefenseunder1983.256F.3d   at1112.Ourholdingrestedontheexplicitassumptionthatthe `  municipalimmunitysetforthinCityofNewportisanaffirmative  @ defensethatcanbewaived.Seeid.at12(notingthatprecedent    supportstheviewthatwaiverofthemunicipalimmunitydefenseis `  possible).Moreover,wequestionedwhetherthecityhadforfeited   itsmunicipalimmunitydefensebyfailingtoassertitatorbefore 0  trial.Seeid.SaldaaSnchezthusdemonstrateshowpermeable  municipalimmunityfrompunitivedamagesunder1983canbe,both P intermsofforfeitureandwaiver. 0  ` Intheinstantcase,theCityneverpledanaffirmative p defenseofimmunityinitsansweranddidnotraisethisdefenseat P summaryjudgmentortrial.TheCity'sfailuretodosocan  reasonablybeviewedasaforfeitureofthatdefense.See,e.g.,  p GuzmnRivera,98F.3dat667(holdingthatthefailureofa   governmentofficialtotimelyassertanaffirmativedefenseof @" qualifiedimmunityunder1983attrialwouldforfeitthedefense  $ fortrialpurposes).Ithereforecannotconcludethatthedistrict `"& courtcommittedplainerrorinchargingthejurythatpunitive #@( damageswereavailableagainsttheCity.Toholdotherwisewould % * requiremetoadopttwoseeminglyimplausiblepropositions:(1) '`", thattheSupremeCourt'sholdinginCityofNewportwasperfectly (#. clearthatnopunitivedamagesareeveravailableunder1983;and 0*%0 (2)thatSaldaaSnchez,whichsupportsthepropositionthat +'2 municipalimmunitycanbeforfeited,wassoobviouslyincorrectas  amatteroflawthatthedistrictcourtshouldnothavereliedon @ it.SeegenerallyUnitedStatesv.Turman,122F.3d1167,1171   (9thCir.1997)("Ifthedistrictjudgewouldhavetobe `  clairvoyanttodetecttheerror...theerrorisnotplainand  @ defendantmustobjectasaconditionforhavingitconsideredon    appeal."). `   ` Ratherthandelvingintoanabyssofimplausibility,I   holdfirmtotheviewthatthedistrictcourtdidnotcommitplain 0  errorinitsjuryinstructionsbecausetheCityfailedtoassert,  andthuslikelyforfeited,itsaffirmativedefenseofmunicipal P immunityfrompunitivedamages. 0  ` Themajoritycontendsthat"this[argument]issurelya p matterofformoversubstance."Themajorityelaboratesonthis P pointbyofferingahypothetical:ifthenightbeforethejury  instructionsweregiventhedistrictcourtjudgehaddiscoveredthe  p CityofNewportopinion,"itishardlylikelythat[thejudge]   wouldhaveauthorizedpunitivedamages."Irespectfullydisagree @" andofferaderivationofthemajority'shypotheticalto  $ demonstratemypoint:# X3XXgX3ND#ifthenightbeforethejuryinstructions `"& weregiven,thedistrictcourtjudgeobtainedacomplete #@( descriptionofthestateofthelawthatis,discoveredthe % * municipal"immunity"topunitivedamagessetforthinCityof '`", NewportandlearnedaboutouropinioninSaldaaSnchez,which (#. explicitlydiscusseshowtheCityofNewportimmunitydefensecan 0*%0 bewaivedorforfeitedIamconvincedthatthejudgewouldhave +'2 instructedthejurythatpunitivedamageswereavailable,sincethe  Cityfailedtoassertitsimmunitydefenseatanystageofthe @ litigation.    ` Notwithstandingmyunwillingnesstofindplainerror,I `  believethatthereisanalternative,andmoreprincipled,ground  @ forstrikingthepunitivedamagesawardagainsttheCity.    Ordinarily,apartywhofailstoraiseaclaimoradefenseinthe `  districtcourtisprohibitedfromunveilingitinthecourtof   appeals.SeeUnitedStatesv.Slade,980F.2d27,30(1stCir. 0  1992)."Thisruleisdeeplyembeddedinourjurisprudence,andwe  haveinvokeditwithanearreligiousfervor."Harwood,69F.3dat P 627(internalcitationsomitted).However,everyrulespeaksofan 0 exception,andthisoneisnodifferent.Inexceptional p circumstancesandtopreventamiscarriageofjustice,thisCourt P mayrelieveapartyfromhisfailuretotimelyassertan  affirmativedefense.See,e.g.,Correav.Hosp.SanFrancisco,69  p F.3d1184,1196(1stCir.1995);seegenerallyLaGuardia,902F.2d   at1013(holdingthat"anappellatecourthasdiscretion,inan @" exceptionalcase,toreachvirginissues").  $  ` InHarwood,wereachedthemeritsofalegislative `"& immunitydefenseeventhoughthedefendantsfailedtoraisethe #@( issueinthedistrictcourt.69F.3dat62729.Wefoundit % * appropriatetoreachtheuntimelyimmunityissuebecause:(1)the '`", omittedissuewaspurelylegalinnature;(2)thebelatedproffer (#. raisedanissueofconstitutionalmagnitude;(3)theomitted 0*%0 argumentwashighlypersuasive;(4)therewasnoinequityor +'2 specialprejudicetotheplaintiffsinallowingthedefensetobe  raisedforthefirsttimeonappeal;(5)theomissionseemed @ entirelyinadvertent;and(6)theomittedissueimplicatedamatter   ofgreatpublicconcern.Seeid.;seealsoKrynicki,689F.2dat `  29192(allowingapartytoraiseavirginissueonappealbecause  @ (1)theissuewaspurelylegal;(2)theomittedargumentwashighly    persuasive;(3)theomittedissuewaslikelytoariseagainin `  othercases;and(4)thefailuretoaddresstheissuewouldresult   inamiscarriageofjustice). 0   ` BecauseIbelievethatthesefactorsaremorethan  adequatelyrepresentedinthiscase,IwouldexcusetheCity's P failuretoraiseitsmunicipalimmunitydefensebelow.First, 0 whethertheCityshouldbeimmunefromthe$500,000punitive p damagesawardisapurelylegalissue,cf.Harwood,69F.3dat627 P (discussingtheissueoflegislativeimmunityas"purelylegalin  nature"),andtherecordnecessarytoresolveitcanbedeveloped  p nofurther.SeeLaGuardia,902F.2dat1013("[Whether]thepoint   canberesolvedwithcertitudeontheexistingrecord...[is]a @" factorthatofteninclinesacourttoentertainapivotalargument  $ forthefirsttimeonappeal.").Second,theomittedissueis `"& highlypersuasivethatis,iftheCityisallowedtoraiseits #@( municipalimmunitydefense,itwouldundoubtedlyprovevictorious % *  ontheissuegiventheSupremeCourt'sholdinginCityofNewport. '`",  ` Third,Chestnutwouldnotsufferanyproceduralinequity  orspecialprejudicewerewetoaddressthisissue.~ #  4      ׀Plaintiff @  addressedtheomittedissueinhisbriefandsetforthhisclaims   atoralargument.Cf.Singletonv.Wulff,428U.S.106,120(1976) `  (discussingimportance,indeterminingwhethertoreachanomitted  @ issue,ofensuringthattheopposingparty"ha[s]theopportunity    topresentwhateverlegalargumentshemayhave"tothecourtof `  appeals).Thus,theabsenceofunfairnessweighsinfavorof   addressingtheomittedissue. 0   ` Fourth,theCity'sfailuretoraiseitsmunicipal  immunitydefenseseemsentirelyinadvertent.Althoughtheomission P hadtheregrettableeffectofprolongingthetrial,itdidnot 0 produceanytacticaladvantagetothedefendant. p  ` Fifth,andperhapsmostimportantly,thefailureto P addresstheCity'smunicipalimmunitydefensewouldresultina  miscarriageofjustice."[P]unitivedamagesimposedona  p municipality...arelikelyaccompaniedbyanincreaseintaxes   orareductionofpublicservicesforthecitizensfootingthe @" bill."CityofNewport,453U.S.at267.Itisconvolutedand  $ unfairtoimposetheburdensofapunitivedamagesawardonthe `"& sametaxpayersandcitizensforwhosebenefitthewrongdoerwas  beingchastised.Seeid.Punishingblamelesstaxpayersforthe @ ineptitudeoftheCity'sattorneyissimplyunjust,especially   consideringthatthetaxpayersareinnopositiontodetersimilar `  negligenceinthefuture.  @  ` BecauseallofthesefactorsconvergeintheCity's    favor,IwouldexcusetheCity'sfailuretoassertitsimmunity `  defensebelowandproceedtoaddressthemeritsofthedefense.In   CityofNewport,theSupremeCourtunequivocallyheldthat 0  municipalitiesareimmunefrompunitivedamagesin1983actions.  453U.S.at271.Chestnutcanadvancenoargument,andIcannot P conceiveofany,toattackthisproposition.Onthisbasis,I 0 wouldfindthattheCity'sdefenseprecludesthepunitivedamages p awardinthiscase,andIwouldstrikethosedamages. P  ` Ithereforeconcurintheoutcomeofthemajority  opinion.  p @xx!DissentFollows@@*   $  ? * ! }    ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge,withwhomCYR,SeniorCircuit  Judge,joins,dissenting. Icanunderstandtheimpulsetogrant  relieftotheCityhere.Together,plaintiff'scounselandcounsel p fortheCityfailedtorecognizethewellestablishedprinciple  P thatlocalgovernmentalentitiesareimmunefrompunitivedamages   under42U.S.C.1983.CityofNewportv.FactConcerts,Inc.,  p  453U.S.247(1981).Averyabletrialjudgealsomissedthe   mistake.Hence,thejuryawarded$500,000inpunitivedamages @  againsttheCity.    ` Noonedisputesthat,underCityofNewport,theCity ` couldhaveavoidedsuchanaward.Butthateasyavoidancedoesnot @ justifyrelievingtheCityoftheconsequencesofitsmistake.  WhetherwetreattheCity'soversightasafailuretoraisethe ` affirmativedefenseofCityofNewportimmunity,orasafailureto  objecttoajuryinstructionunderRule51,wemustaffirmthe 0 jury'sverdictunlessweconcludethatallowingthepunitive  damagesawardtostandwouldconstitutea"miscarriageofjustice." P  Untiltoday,wehavereservedthatlabelfor"extraordinary"cases. 0" Teamsters,LocalNo.59v.SuperlineTransp.Co.,953F.2d17,21 p!$ (1stCir.1992).Indeed,itappearsthatwehaveneverbefore #P& foundamiscarriageofjusticeinacivilcaseinvolvingfaulty $( juryinstructions.SeeDavisv.Rennie,264F.3d86,10001(1st  &p!* Cir.2001).Thecircumstancesofthiscasegiveusnoreasonto '#, departfromthatsettledpractice.Therefore,Irespectfully @)$.  dissent. * &0? &     I.     ` Themajorityandconcurringopinionsciteseveralfactors  '0tosupporttheirconclusionthatallowingthepunitivedamages  p awardtostandwouldresultinamiscarriageofjustice.Inmy   view,thosefactorseitherindividuallyorincombination @  fallfarshortofamiscarriageofjustice.    ЀgX3XX X3  ` A. InnocentTaxpayers  `   ` Boththemajorityandtheconcurringopinionsemphasize @  thataffirmingthepunitivedamagesawardwouldbeunjustbecause   itwouldpunishinnocenttaxpayers.SeeCityofNewport,453U.S. ` at267.Thosereferencestoinnocenttaxpayersseemtohave @ multiplemeanings.Thetaxpayersareinnocentinthesensethat  theydidnotengageintheconductthatthepunitivedamagesare ` intendedtopunishanddeter.Instead,thetaxpayerswhodonot  needtobedeterredfromfuturemisconductmustpayforthe 0 misdeedsofgovernmentalactors.Thetaxpayersalsoareinnocent  inthesensethattheydidnotmakethemistakeinlitigationthat P  resultedinthepunitivedamagesaward.Instead,thatmistakewas 0" madebytheCity'scounsel. p!$  ` Bothversionsoftheinnocenceargumentprovetoomuch. #P& Thefirstversion,focusingontheabsenceofdeterrence,issimply $( arestatementofapolicyreasoninvokedbytheSupremeCourtfor  &p!* therulethatmunicipalitiesareimmunefrompunitivedamagesunder '#, 1983.Ifthatpolicyreasontranslatesintoamiscarriageof @)$. justiceineverycasewherepunitivedamagesarewronglyawarded * &0 againstamunicipality,thereshouldbenopretenseofamulti `,'2 factoranalysisinsuchcases.Certainly,thisversionof  innocencedoesnotdistinguishonesuchcasefromanother. @  ` Onanevenmorebasiclevel,theinnocenttaxpayerwill   alwaysbethevictimwhensomeerrorattrialresultsinalarge `  (orlarger)damagesawardagainstamunicipalityorother  @ governmentalentity.Thusunlesswearepreparedtorecognize    alocalgovernmentexceptiontoourrulesgoverningprocedural `  defaultthemerefactthatinnocenttaxpayerswillbearthe   bruntoftheCity'serrorcannotsufficetoestablishamiscarriage 0  ofjusticehere.*! #  5      ׀   ` Thesecondversionoftheinnocenceargumentsuffersfrom P asimilardefectinfailingtodistinguishthiscasefromanyother 0 casesubjecttoplainerrorreview.# X3XXgX3%#gX3XX X3Therearefewtenetssowell p establishedinAmericanjurisprudenceasthepropositionthata P clientisboundbythemistakesofitschosencounsel.See,e.g.,  Irwinv.Dept.ofVeteransAffairs,498U.S.89,92(1990)  p (explainingthatin"oursystemofrepresentative   litigation...eachpartyisdeemedboundbytheactsofhis @" lawyer-agent");Houltv.Hoult,57F.3d1,5(1stCir.1995)("We  $ haverepeatedlyheldthattheactsandomissionsofcounselare `"& customarilyvisitedupontheclientinacivilcase."(internal  quotationmarksomitted)).Plainerrorreviewoffersanexception @ tothatgeneralruleforextraordinarycases.Obviously,theplain   errorstandardandparticularlytherequirementthatreliefwill `  notbeavailableabsenta"miscarriageofjustice"cannotbe  @ satisfiedsimplybecausethecomplainingparty(orthosewho    ultimatelybearitscosts)willbeharmedbyitsattorney's `  mistake# X3XXgX3T#gX3XX X3.Toholdotherwisewoulddeprivethemiscarriageof   justicerequirementofanymeaning,exceptintheveryrarecase 0  wheretheerrorwascausedbythepartyitself.   ` Putsimply,theharmtoinnocenttaxpayersher# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3eisno P differentfromtheharmthatwilloccurwheneverpunitivedamages 0 areerroneouslyawardedagainstamunicipalityunder1983,or p whengovernmentcounselmakesacostly# X3XXgX3ߝ#gX3XX X3blunder.Whileunfortunate, P suchharmdoesnotconstitutea"peculiarcircumstance[]"that  necessitatesreliefinorderto"preventaclearmiscarriageof  p justice."Nimrodv.Sylvester,369F.2d870,873(1stCir.1966).    q(835! !"83"   ` 832  B  .3  0   WindfalltoChestnut83J݌@" (# (# Ќ   ` Themajorityopinionstatesthatthecourtisjustified  !p$ inaffordingreliefbecausethispunitived# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3amagesawardwasa "& "windfall"forChestnut,meaning,Igather,thatthosedamageswere @$( unnecessarytocompensatehimfully.Thatassertionisgroundedin % !* speculation.Wecannotknowhowthejurywouldhavetreatedthe `'", compensatorydamagesquestionhadithadbeenawarethatpunitive (@$.  damageswereunavailable. *%0  ` Onethingisveryclear,however.Thiswasnotarunaway   jury.Tothecontrary,Chestnutpresenteddetailedevidenceofthe @ paydifferentialbetweenhisincomeasacraneoperatorandasa   cranemechanic,includingexperttestimonyfromaneconomistwho `  placedhispastandfutureeconomicdamagesat$880,000.That  @ expertpreparedareportthatwasadmittedintoevidenceregarding    presentvaluecalculationsofChestnut'seconomicdamagesunder `  variousassumptions.    ` Thus,consideredincombinationwiththecompensatory 0  damagesaward,thepunitivedamageswerewellwithintherangeof  thecompensableinjuryChestnutsoughttoestablishattrial.Only P byignoringrealitycanitbesuggested,asthemajoritydoes,that 0 thecompensatorydamagesawardtoChestnutprobablywas p "uninfluencedbythelargepunitives."# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3Rather,absentthe P availabilityofpunitivedamages,thejurymaywellhaveawarded  Chestnutsubstantiallymoreincompensatorydamages.# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3Weshouldbe  p mostreluctanttograntreliefonthebasisofanallegedwindfall   whenweareunabletodeterminewhetherandtowhatextentit @" actuallyoccurred.  $ # X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3 "83"   ` 83P2  C  .3  0   SharedResponsibilityfortheError # X3XXgX3.#gX3XX X383P݌`"& (# (# Ќ   m(88q! !  ` ThemajorityemphasizesthatChestnut'scounselplayeda @$( roleincausingtheerroracircumstancethatitdescribesas % !* "somewhatunusual."Iseenothingunusualinsuchshared `'", responsibility.Intheprocessofassistingthejudgewithjury (@$. instructions,thepartiesroutinelysubmittheirproposed *%0 instructions.Notuncommonly,onepartyfailstoseeanerrorin ,`'2 theotherparty'sproposedinstructionsuntilafteranunfavorable  verdict.Theobjectionisthenraised,subjecttoplainerror @ review.Inthatcircumstance,bothpartiesshareresponsibility   fortheerror.However,untiltoday,thatfacthasnotenteredthe `  miscarriageofjusticeanalysis.  @  ` Thereasonisfairlysimple.# X3XXgX3+#gX3XX X3Inanycaseinvolvingplain    errorreview,theappellantwillarguethatthecourtbelowmadean `  errorthatwassoplainorobviousthatitshouldbecorrected   notwithstandingthelitigants'failuretopointitout.# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3ԀTherefore, 0  asamatterofsimplelogic,itcannotpossiblybeenoughthat  opposingcounselfailedtocallthecourt'sattentiontoaclear P legalerrororevensaidaffirmativelythattherewasnoerror. #  6      ׀ 0 Thatwillbetrueinanycasethatmakesitpastthefirstprongof p theplainerrortest;somethingmoreisneededinorderto P establishamiscarriageofjustice.  # X3XXgX3W#gX3XX X3 ` Inadditiontobeinginconsistentwiththewell  p establishedplainerrorstandard,themajority'sreasoningisalso   unfair.Inouradversarysystem,counselfortheCityhadthe @" obligationtounderstandthelawandadvocateeffectivelyforits  $ client.ItseemsoddtoequateChestnut'smistakewiththe `"& negligenceoftheCity.TodosounjustlypenalizesChestnutfor #@( failingtoprotecttheinterestsoftheCity,hisadversaryin % * litigation. '`",  u(88m! !"83"  832  D  .3  0   Precedent83Z݌ (# (# Ќ  Inafinalattempttojustifythegrantofreliefhere,  themajoritycitesNat'lAss'nofSocialWorkersv.Harwood,69  p F.3d622(1stCir.1995).There,ashere,wegavetheappellants   thebenefitofagovernmentalimmunitynotwithstandingtheir @  failuretoraisethatdefenseattrial.Butthatiswherethe    parallelends.TheappellantsinHarwoodwerestatelegislators, `  andtheaffirmativedefensetheytardilyinvokedwasstate @  legislativeimmunity.Thatkindofimmunityisnotablydifferent   fromtheimmunitytopunitivedamagesatissuehere. ` First,recognizingthatlegislativeimmunityisgrounded  inconstitutionaldoctrine,wenotedinHarwoodthat"[w]henthe 0 Justicesinitiallyrecognizedstatelegislativeimmunityasa  componentoffederalcommonlaw,theyturnedtotheSpeechor P DebateClause[U.S.Const.art.I.,6,cl.1]forguidanceanent 0 thecontoursofthedoctrine."Harwood,69F.3dat629.Thefact p thatthedefenseraised"anissueofconstitutionalmagnitude"was P  amongthefactorswetookintoconsiderationindecidingto " considerthelegislativeimmunitydefense,notwithstandingthe  !p$ proceduraldefault.Id.at627.Incontrast,theCityofNewport "& municipalimmunitytopunitivedamagesisapurelycommonlaw @$( defense,groundedinhistoryandpolicyconsiderations.SeeCity % !* ofNewport,453U.S.at261("Insum,wefindthatconsiderations `'", ofhistoryandpolicydonotsupportexposingamunicipalityto (@$.  punitivedamagesforthebadfaithactionsofitsofficials."). *%0 Second,weexplainedinHarwoodthatourdecisionto   relievedefendantsfromtheirproceduraldefaultwas"fortifiedby @ ourrecognitionthataprimarypurposeoftheimmunityisto   preventcourtsfromintrudingintoprecinctsthatare `  constitutionallyreservedtothelegislativebranch."69F.3dat  @ 628n.6.Thus,weemphasizedthattheomittedissueoflegislative    immunity"implicatesmattersofgreatpublicmoment,andtouches `  uponpoliciesasbasicasfederalism,comity,andrespectforthe   independenceofdemocraticinstitutions."Id.at628.Reliefwas 0  necessary,weexplained,topreventtheintrusionofthejudicial  branchinto"theinternaloperationsofastatelegislature."Id. P at629. 0 Nosuchseparationofpowersconcernsareimplicated p here.Rather,wearefacedonlywiththesortof"individualized P harmthatoccurswheneverthefailureseasonablytoraiseaclaim  ordefensealterstheoutcomeofacase."Id.at628n.5.Thatis  p notenoughtowarrantreliefunderthe"miscarriageofjustice"   standard.Id. @" # X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3   II.   $    ` Insum,themajority'sinvocationofHarwood󀄄likeits "& emphasisoninnocenttaxpayers,Chestnut'ssocalled"windfall," @$( andhissharedresponsibilityfortheerrorisinsufficientto % !* qualifythiscaseasextraordinary,oritsresultasamiscarriage `'", ofjustice.That,initself,isenoughtoforeclosereliefhere. (@$. Butthereismore.Severalotherfactorscounselstronglyagainst *%0 grantingreliefinthiscase.# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3 ,`'2  ` First,itbearsemphasisthattheproceduralmisstepby  theCitywasparticularlyegregious.TherulessetoutinCityof @ Newport,governingimmunityfrompunitivedamages,arehardlya   trapfortheunwary.Tothecontrary,theCityhadandignored `  Єrepeatedopportunitiestoinvokethatimmunity.Chestnutmade  @ hisintentiontoseekpunitivedamagesexplicitinhiscomplaint    andthenintwosubsequentamendedcomplaints.TheCityneverpled `  anaffirmativedefenseinitsanswertopunitivedamagesunder   1983anddidnotraiseitsdefensetopunitivedamagesatthe 0  pretrialconference.   ` Duringthechargeconferenceconductedpriortoclosing P arguments,thedistrictcourtspecificallyaskedcounselwhether 0 punitivedamageswereavailableagainsttheCity.Yetagainthe p Cityfailedtoassertitsimmunitydefense.Cf._Danco_,Inc.v. P WalMartStores,Inc.,178F.3d8,15(1stCir.1999)(deemingit  materialto"plainerror"inquirythatlegalissuewas  p "specificallydiscussed"beforetrialcourt).Followingthecharge   conference,thecourtrecessedforalunchbreakpriorto @" entertainingclosingarguments,therebyprovidingcounselwith  $ anotheropportunitytoreviewtheproposedjurychargeandconduct `"& anylegalresearchsuggestedthereby. #@(  ` Duringclosingargument,Chestnuturgedthejurytoaward % * punitivedamagesagainsttheCity.TheCitydidnotobject.Then, '`", thedistrictcourtfurnishedcounselwiththeverdictform,which (#. explicitlyprovidedforpunitivedamagesagainsttheCity.Still 0*%0 theCityneitherobjectedtotheverdictformnorassertedits +'2 defenseagainstanyawardofpunitivedamages,eventhough the  proposedchargeincludedanexplicitinstructionauthorizingthe @ jurytoconsiderapunitivedamagesawardagainsttheCity.   Finally,althoughjurydeliberationsdidnotcommenceuntilthe `  nextday,whichassuredthattheCityhadyetmoretimetoexamine  @ theproposedchargeandverdictformandundertakewhateverlegal    researchmightberequired,theCityneverthelessfailedtoobject `  totheproposedpunitivedamagesinstruction.    ` A"miscarriageofjustice"claimmeritslittlecredence 0  onappealwherethedesiredreliefwassoobviouslyandreadily  availableinthetrialcourt.# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3Inmyview,a"miscarriageof P justice"entailsameasureoffundamentalunfairness.Thereisno 0 suchunfairnesshere,however,giventhatcounselfortheCitywas p accordedeveryconceivableopportunityto# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3opposethepunitive P damagesclaimandtherelatedjuryinstruction.   ` Second,"[i]tcountsheavilyagainstfindingplainerror  p thatthepartyontheothersidewouldbeunfairlyprejudiced."   Id.Werewesimplytovacatethepunitivedamagesaward,itis @" likelythatChestnutwouldbeprejudiced.Asexplainedabove,the  $ availabilityofpunitivedamagesmaywellhaveaffectedthe `"& compensatorydamagesawardmadebythejury.Consequently,had #@( punitivedamagesnotbeenanoption,thejurymightverywellhave % * determineduponalargercompensatorydamagesaward. '`",  ` Inordertoforfendagainsttheprejudiceproblem,the (#. majorityrefusestostrikethepunitivedamagesaward,opting 0*%0 insteadforanewtrialontheissueofdamagesshouldChestnut +'2 choosetopursuethatoption.Althoughitsapproachissurelymore  just,itisnotwithoutitsowndifficulties.TheCitysought @ alternativerelieffromthetrialcourt:either(i)thatthe   punitivedamagesawardbestricken,leavinginplaceonlythe `  compensatorydamages,or(ii)anewtrial.Onappeal,however,the  @ Cityhasabandoneditsrequestforalternativerelief,opting    insteadforitsallornothingstrategybyrequestingthatwe `  strikethepunitivedamagesawardonthegroundthatthe   availabilityofsuchdamagesaffectedneitherthepresentationof 0  Chestnut'scasenortheamountofcompensatorydamagesawardedby  thejury. P  ` Althoughwefrequentlypermitappelleestopreservetheir 0 trialcourtjudgmentsbyaffirmingonanybasisapparentfromthe p record(therebyfurtheringtheinterestsoffinality),see,e.g., P McGurnv.BellMicroproducts,Inc.,284F.3d86,91(1stCir.  2002) ,weconsistentlyhaveheldappellantstotheargumentsraised  p andthereliefsought,see,e.g.,InreGrandJuryProceedings,183   F.3d71,73n.1(1stCir.1999)(decliningtoconsiderargument @" abandonedonappeal).Here,ontheotherhand,themajority,sua  $ sponte,undoesajuryverdictbyorderinganewtrial.Moreover, `"& insodoing,itonceagainreachesouttorelievetheCityofits #@( fundamentalmistakeitsselectionofanineffectiveappellate % * strategybyaccordingreliefnotsoughtbytheCityatthe '`", outsetofthisappeal. (#.  ` Finally,establishedprecedents,inourownandother 0*%0 circuits,plainlyprescribethatmunicipalitiesmayforfeittheir +'2 immunitydefensetopunitivedamagesclaimsunder1983dueto  theirlitigationconduct.Forinstance,inSaldaaSnchezv. @ LopezGerena,256F.3d1,1112(1stCir.2001)# X3XXgX30#gX3XX X3,werecognizedthat   thedefendants'righttoraiseCityofNewportmayhavebeenbarred `  onproceduralgrounds.Similarly,inBlackv.Stephens,662F.2d  @ 181,184n.1(3rdCir.1981),# X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3theThirdCircuitaffirmeda1983    punitivedamagesawardagainsttheCityofAllentown,afterhaving `  declinedtoallowthecitytoassertitsCityofNewportdefense   duetoitsfailuretodosointhedistrictcourt.# X3XXgX3H#gX3XX X3Seealso 0  Barnettv.HousingAuth.ofAtlanta,707F.2d1571,157981(11th  Cir.1983)(decliningtorelieveappellantoffailuretoobjectto P thesubmissionofthe1983punitivedamagesissuetothejury, 0 andaffirmingpunitivedamagesawardagainstAtlantaHousing p Authorityonaccountofthat"proceduraldefault"),overruledon P othergrounds,McKinneyv.Pate,20F.3d1550,155859(11thCir.  1994). #  7      # X3XXgX3#gX3XX X3ԀIcandiscernnosoundreasonforfollowingadifferent  p courseintheinstantcase.       III.   = ` Thisisanawkwardcase,tobesure.Thepunitive  damagesissueshouldnothavebeenpresentedtothejury,andthe  p punitivedamagesawardagainsttheCitywasplainlycontraryto   law.Yetthequestionwithwhichwearepresentedisneither @  whethertheawardamountstoplainerror,norwhethertheinterests    oftheCitywereadverselyaffected.Instead,theissueiswhether `  therewasamiscarriageofjusticesuchthatthepunitivedamages @  awardmustbesetaside.Forthereasonsstatedabove,Iconclude   thatnosuchmiscarriageofjusticeoccurred.AsIseenoreason ` torelievetheCityoftheconsequencesofitslitigationconduct,  thepunitivedamagesawardshouldstand.# X3XXgX3# 0