After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This case arose out of Plaintiff's fall from a roof while he was installing roofing materials. Defendant manufactured the roofing materials which Plaintiff claims tore, thereby causing him to fall from the roof and sustain various injuries. Plaintiff brought this diversity action claiming negligence, strict liability, and breach of various warranties. The case was submitted to a jury with special interrogatories, and the jury returned a special verdict in favor of Plaintiff and assessed damages at $187,000. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court heard arguments from counsel regarding the apportionment of the damages. As a result of those arguments, the district court certified certain questions of Wyoming law to the Wyoming Supreme Court for determination. After receiving the answers to its certified questions, the trial court entered judgement against Defendant for the full damage amount. Defendant appeals the judgment as entered, claiming that the trial court erred in not applying comparative fault principles to reduce the amount of the judgment so that Defendant is only required to pay the percentage of damages which the jury attributed to it in the negligence portion of the special verdict form.

The jury in this case was specifically instructed, without objection, that

Comparative fault, if any, on the part of the plaintiff, will prevent recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant on plaintiff's negligence, strict liability and breach of express and/or implied warranty claims if you find that the plaintiff's fault is more than fifty percent (50%) of the total fault.

. . . . .

The defendant's liability for damages is limited by the percentage of fault, if any, which you determine is attributable to the defendant. In other words, the defendant will be liable only for that proportion of the total dollar amount determined as damages in the percentage of the amount of fault attributed to it.

Jury Instruction No. 51, Appendix To Appellant's Brief--Vol. I at 0106-07.

After the verdict was returned, the district court held a hearing to determine the amount of the judgment to be entered against Defendant. As a result of that hearing, the district court certified the following questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court:1

Does Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) apply to recovery on a claim of strict liability under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 402A?

Does Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) apply to recovery on a claim of strict liability under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 402B?

Does Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) apply to recovery on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?

Does Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) apply to recovery on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

Does Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109 (1988) apply to recovery on a claim for a breach of express warranty?Certification Order From The United States District Court For The District Of Wyoming To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Wyoming, Appendix To Appellant's Brief--Vol. I at 198. The Wyoming Supreme Court answered each of the questions in the negative. Upon receipt of the answers to its certified questions, the district court entered judgment against Defendant for the full amount of the jury verdict.

This court only rarely reviews an error in jury instructions where no specific objection was made before submission of the charge to the jury, Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585, 105 S. Ct. 2847, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467 (1985), and in those rare instances we review for plain error and prejudice. Id. This case, however, presents unique circumstances which require special consideration. "Usually, the certification of questions to a state Supreme Court precedes, not follows, the trial. This allows full and complete instructions on the applicable state law." Saunders v. Rhode Island, 731 F.2d 81, 84-85 (1st Cir.1984). Because the basis for objection to jury instruction No. 51 became known only after the Wyoming Supreme Court answered the questions certified to it by the district court, which was after the jury had already returned its special verdict, we will review jury instruction No. 51 under the same standard as if an objection had been timely made. Id. at 85.

We review the record to "determine whether the instruction states the governing law and provides the jury with an ample understanding of the relevant issues and the applicable law" Street v. Parham, 929 F.2d 537, 539 (10th Cir.1991). We do not determine whether instructions, on the whole, are flawless, " 'but whether the jury was misled in any way and whether it had an understanding of the issues and its duty to decide those issues.' " Id. (quoting Shute v. Moon Lake Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 899 F.2d 999, 1004 (10th Cir.1990)).

In light of the Wyoming Supreme Court's answers to the certified questions, it is obvious that instruction No. 51 was an incorrect statement of Wyoming law. We can only assume that the jury relied on and followed the instructions and, consequently, we find that the jury was misled when it was incorrectly instructed regarding comparative fault principles as applied to claims based on strict liability and breach of warranty. Plaintiff's remark in his closing argument regarding apportionment was also misleading.2 Because of the timing of the certification in this case, a new trial is necessary because "[w]e can only speculate as to the effect [of an instruction correctly stating the law] on the answers to the interrogatories." Saunders, 731 F.2d at 85. Here, as in Saunders, "it is clear that the jury was not, as it should have been, fully and correctly instructed on the applicable law of the case." Id. We hold that, in this particular case, it would be manifestly unjust to assume in any way what the jury would have done had it been correctly instructed and not misled regarding the effect on the judgment of its answers to the special interrogatories. We therefore decline to adjust the damages for which Defendant is liable in accordance with some speculative theory of apportionment on the various causes of action, and we remand this case for a new trial.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.