This case arose from a dispute among investors in a robotic surveillance boat called an OWL, which is somewhat like an unmanned jet ski designed to provide surveillance in aquatic environments too hostile for people. During closing arguments in the trial, one of the attorneys allegedly made improper and prejudicial comments to jurors, though opposing counsel failed to object. The jury awarded only nominal damages. On appeal, the Fourth District Court said that the failure to object barred any consideration of the issue but acknowledged contrary holdings by other District Courts.