dissenting.
I believe that it was plain error not to instruct that the stepchildren of Russel Brown, who were completely dependent upon him at the time of his death, were “other dependents,” and that under AS 09.-55.580(a),1 other dependents are to be included with the husband, wife or children. I can see no other reasonable reading of the statute.
There is some slight room for ambiguity in the sentence which states that “the amount recovered, if any, shall be exclusively for the benefit of the decedent’s husband or wife and children, him or her surviving, or other dependents.” It is contended that the category “or other dependents” comes into effect only if no husband, wife or children survive. Such an intent could easily have been expressed had the legislature so desired by stating that the amount recovered be “exclusively for husband, wife or children, him or her surviving, but if no such husband, wife or child survives, then to other dependents.” 2 Not only could such a tiered system of beneficiaries be expressed much more explicitly, had it been the legislature’s intent, but the sentence in the statute, immediately following the first reference to “other dependents,” clearly indicates that “other dependents” are to be treated in the same manner as the husband, wife and children. That sentence states:
When the decedent leaves no husband, wife or children surviving him or her or other dependents, the amount recovered shall be administered as other personal property of the deceased person but shall be limited to pecuniary loss.
The statute establishes a dichotomy between, on the one hand, situations where a decedent leaves a husband, wife, children or other dependents, and, on the other hand, situations where there are no survivors in those categories.
Each of the stepchildren claimants lived at the home of the decedent, received sole support from him, and looked to him for fatherly love and affection. Like the “spouse” and the other “child” of Russel Brown, they will suffer financial and emotional loss. We defined the purpose of this portion of the statute in In re Estate of Pushruk, 562 P.2d 329, 331 (Alaska 1977), as follows:
In 1960, the statute was amended to its present form. At that time, the legislature added “other dependents” to the class of statutory beneficiaries. Considering the history and purposes of the statute, this amendment appears designed to protect the interest of those who, like children and spouses, will suffer financial loss. The term “dependent” provides for all such persons without creating either an excessively narrow or an overbroad classification. Thus, dependency is a question of fact, [footnote omitted]
It is not disputed that the stepchildren were dependent.
*537The majority relies on what appears to me to be an overly technical application of Civil Rule 51(a), and thus avoids confronting the issue of statutory construction. It seems questionable as to whether there was even a technical failure to object to the instruction excluding the stepchildren from consideration as “heirs.” The following exchange indicates that the position of the claimants had been made clear by counsel and was expressly understood by the court:
THE COURT: Well, the only — Mr. Hart’s position originally was that the stepchildren were for intents and purposes identical to natural children for purposes of the statute.
MR. HAGANS: Right.
THE COURT: That was his position as I announced in the opening statement and that was his position throughout the case. During the course of the case, I asked for briefing on the issue, pointed out that I was a little concerned that the language of the statute would include stepchildren but only to the extent that there were no natural children and that to the extent there were natural children indicated that the award must be exclusively for their benefit and that of the surviving spouse. And the issue was kind of dropped there. The instructions, of course, were prepared on the basis of my interpretation of the law and my assumption as to evidence that would come in . . [T]hat was my understanding of the respecting [sic] positions of the parties.[3]
MR. HART: Just a moment, Your Honor. Really, for the record, I do want to make it clear that our position is essentially as I believe the court understood it on the whole thing about the instructions and who are the dependents and everything like that. I think — I believe Mr. Hagans is wrong when he says that the statute says and dependents. As I recall it said or dependents, and that was really the basis for the court’s reading. I took it to be a decision on the law having made our position clear it became the law of the case.
THE COURT: That would be my feeling as well, Mr. Hart.
Thus, not only had the issue been brought to the attention of the court, but the court decided the issue and agreed that its decision on that point had become the law of the case. It is difficult to understand what could have been accomplished by any further objection.4
Here, much of the case centered around who would recover and the means of assessing damages under AS 09.55.580(a). It seems to me that if there was a technical violation of Rule 51(a), this is an appropriate situation for invoking the plain error rule.
In Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Peck, 520 P.2d 87, 90 & n. 7 (Alaska 1974), we stated:
[W]e have also recognized that if the alleged error is “plain error” that is likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, we will consider such error even though not raised below. Merrill v. Faltin, 430 P.2d 913, 917 (Alaska 1976); Gregory v. Padilla, 379 P.2d 951, 955 (Alaska 1973); Reiten v. Hendricks, 370 P.2d 166, 169 (Alaska 1962). See Malvo v. J. C. Penney, 512 P.2d 575, 584 (Alaska 1973). [footnote integrated into text]
*538When the essence of the action is the amount of damages to be awarded in a wrongful death case and the manner of distribution of those damages, it seems to me that the failure to instruct that the dependent children were entitled to recover results in a miscarriage of justice.
In summary, I believe that an adequate objection was made to the proposed instruction to accomplish the purpose of Rule 51(a). To hold otherwise, in my opinion, places form above substance. If the objection is not considered adequate, I would treat the matter as plain error.
In either event, I would remand for a new trial.
. The majority at note 1 sets out the full text of this statute.
. Prior versions of Alaska’s wrongful death statute indicate the legislature’s ability to express clearly a tiered approach to beneficiaries:
Action for Wrongful Death: Disposition of Amount Recovered. When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or omis- . sion of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefore against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action, had he lived, against the latter for an injury done by the same act or omission. . . [T]he amount recovered, if any, shall be exclusively for the benefit of the decedent’s husband or wife and children when he or she leaves a husband, wife, or children, him or her surviving; or leaving no husband, wife or children surviving then and in that event, for the benefit per capita of the child or children of the decedent’s child or children, if any, and the surviving parent or parents of the decedent. [emphasis added]
Ch. 153, § 1, SLA 1955, amending § 61-7-3 ACLA 1949 (current statute at AS 09.55.580). See generally Ingraham, Damages for Wrongful Death in Alaska, 4 Alaska L.J. 113 (1966).
. This discussion occurred at the hearing on the plaintiffs motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. It refers to an earlier, apparently off-the-record, discussion of the proper construction of the statutory term “other dependents.”
. Objection is required to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the alleged error. Rank v. State, 373 P.2d 734, 738 (Alaska 1962); State v. Avent, 209 Or. 181, 302 P.2d 549, 550 (1956); 5A Moore’s Federal Practice § 51.04 at 2521 (1977). The purpose of Rule 51(a) is to obtain a ruling by the trial court and thereby permit appellate review of the issue. E. g., Dimmick v. State, 449 P.2d 774, 776 (Alaska 1969) (analyzing equivalent criminal rule). In this case, the trial court ruled on the construction of “other dependents,” and the record gives the court’s rationale for the ruling. As the highest appellate court in the state, I think we ought to review the correctness of that ruling.