Forms of Jury Verdict

Jury Verdict Type and Validity

Forms of Jury Verdict

The verdict form is itself an instruction to the jury: it tells the jurors what they must resolve and what they must report. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b)(1) shows how much a form can ask of them. The court may submit forms for a general verdict together with written questions on one or more issues of fact, must give the instructions and explanations the jury needs to render the verdict and answer the questions in writing, and must direct the jury to do both.¹

The form also fixes what the court has to work with after the jury leaves. A jury that reports only the winner and the relief gives the court a bottom line and nothing beneath it.² A jury that also answers written questions leaves specific factual findings that the court can read against the verdict.³

Federal practice recognizes three forms, and they differ in what the jury reports and in who applies the law:

• A general verdict reports the winner and any relief. The jury applies the judge's instructions to the facts it finds and does not state those findings.⁴
• A special verdict under Rule 49(a) reports written findings of fact only. The court applies the law to them.⁵
• A general verdict with written questions under Rule 49(b) reports specific findings and a winner. The jury makes the findings and then applies the law itself.⁶

The sections below take the forms in that order, beginning with the general verdict because the other two are variations on it. The last section shows how to tell them apart from the instructions the jury received and the form it returned.

General Verdict

A general verdict answers two questions: who won and, if the winner is entitled to money, how much, as Turyna v. Martam Construction Co. put it.⁷ Mason v. Ford Motor Co. defined the verdict as one in which the jury finds in favor of one party or the other, as opposed to resolving specific fact questions.⁸ The judge states the law in the instructions, and the jury applies it to the facts as it finds them, reporting to the court only which party wins and the relief to be awarded.⁹ Rule 49(b)(1) treats this as the baseline, since the written questions it authorizes ride along with forms for a general verdict.¹⁰ It is also the form parties request most often.¹¹

Adding claims and parties enlarges the form without changing its kind. The jury may have to report a decision on each claim with respect to each party, and a multi-claim general verdict can come to resemble a spreadsheet.¹² Every cell in that spreadsheet still answers who won and how much.

The jury's task classifies the verdict, not the length of the form. In Mason, the court refused to treat the verdict form as a special verdict. It had instructed the jury on the law to apply to its factual findings and required the jury to apply that law and render a verdict. The jury therefore performed the most essential function of a general verdict: it decided which party prevails.¹³

The general verdict gives the court little control over the jury, because nothing on the form shows what the verdict rests on.¹⁴ The cost comes due on appeal. If an error touches any claim, theory, or defense the jury considered, the reviewing court cannot tell whether the jury relied on a tainted ground or a sound one, and it may have to reverse.¹⁵

Despite that opacity, Rule 49 compels no alternative. The court may submit written questions with a general verdict form,¹⁶ and any party may ask for a special verdict, yet the decision lies within the trial judge's discretion.¹⁷ Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. called the general verdict opaque and thought a special verdict usually preferable. It nonetheless held that a federal district judge has full discretion and may still require merely the old-fashioned general verdict, and it could not say that a judge errs by refusing to demand a special verdict for any reason or no reason.¹⁸ A party's request for written findings therefore does not bind the judge, and a plain general verdict remains a permissible choice even when a special verdict would be better.

Special Verdict

A special verdict removes the final decision from the jury. Under Rule 49(a)(1), the court may require the jury to return only a special written finding on each issue of fact.²⁰ The jury names no winner; the court takes the findings, applies the law to them, and enters judgment. As Mason put it, the jury's sole function is to determine the facts, and it needs no instruction on the law because the court applies the law to the facts as the jury found them.²¹ Who applies the law is what separates this form from the other two: under a general verdict the jurors apply it and announce a winner, while under a special verdict the judge applies it after the jurors have finished.

The rule gives the court three ways to collect the findings. It may submit:

• written questions susceptible of a categorical or other brief answer;²²
• written forms of the special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence;²³ or
• whatever other method the court considers appropriate.²⁴

However the court gathers them, the jury returns findings of fact and nothing that itself decides the case.²⁵

Because the court applies the law, the jury needs little legal instruction. Rule 49(a)(2) requires the court to give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to make its findings on each submitted issue.²⁶ The questions on the form set the measure. If one asks whether the driver kept a proper lookout, the jury may need the phrase explained, since jurors cannot find a fact they do not understand. Skidmore went further and said the judge need not, and should not, charge on the substantive legal rules beyond what is reasonably necessary for the jury to answer the questions intelligently.²⁷ That limit supplies a test. When the court tells the jury what law to apply to its findings and requires it to render a verdict, the form is no longer special.²⁸

The jury found facts and the court did the legal work, so the verdict is special under Rule 49(a). Fact questions alone do not make a verdict special, though, because they also appear in the hybrid form. The instructions decide the matter. In Mason, the court quoted the principle that if the written questions were truly special verdicts, no instruction on the law would have been given to the jury, and it held that the instructions and the requirement to render a verdict ruled out the special-verdict label.²⁹

Rule 49(a)(3) penalizes a party who treats the form casually. A party waives the right to a jury on any fact issue raised by the pleadings or evidence but left off the form, unless it demands submission before the jury retires. If the party makes no demand, the court may find the issue itself, and if the court makes no finding, it is considered to have found consistently with its judgment on the special verdict.³⁰ The jury goes out once, so silence while the questions are settled forfeits the jury on whatever was left out.

The special verdict is designed to make the trial more scientific, to discourage a jury from acting on bias or ignoring the law, and so to reduce appellate reversals.³¹ Skidmore adds two reasons. A jury confined to fact questions is less able to know which side its findings will favor, so appeals to the jurors' cruder prejudices will frequently be less effective; the court allowed that this hope may be too sanguine, but thought a fact verdict may often reduce the sway of emotion. A special verdict also “searches the conscience of the individual juror, as a general verdict does not,” because a juror who will join a general verdict for a large and unwarranted sum may shrink from a specific finding against his judgment and sense of right and wrong.³²

The device costs something. It makes deliberation harder and slower, and drafting clear, unambiguous questions is difficult for the court.³³ Unclear answers carry a further risk, because the court needs unambiguous findings to enter judgment, though the judge has a duty to harmonize apparent inconsistencies when it can.³⁴ As with every Rule 49 form, the choice belongs to the trial judge.

General Verdict With Written Questions

A general verdict with written questions asks the jury for specific findings and a winner. Rule 49(b)(1) authorizes the combination: forms for a general verdict, written questions on one or more issues of fact, the instructions needed for the jury to render the verdict and answer the questions, and a direction to do both.³⁶ Mason described the division of labor: the jury makes specific factual findings, and the jury itself then applies the law to those findings to issue a general verdict.³⁷

That makes the form a middle case. In a typical general verdict the jury states no finding beyond the winner. Under Rule 49(a), the jury finds facts and the judge reaches the ultimate legal conclusions. Rule 49(b) gives the jury both jobs.³⁸ The written questions themselves may look much alike under the two rules, because each procedure focuses the jury on the facts that must be found to resolve the dispute.³⁹ What differs is the verdict form. If the jury must also say who prevails, a general verdict is present.

The hybrid addresses the general verdict's blind spot. A plain general verdict gives no way to see what it rests on,⁴⁰ but written answers put findings on paper that the court can compare with the verdict, and Rule 49(b) tells the court what to do when the comparison fails. Answers consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict give the court options.⁴¹ Answers inconsistent with each other and with the verdict bar judgment: the court must send the jury back to reconsider or order a new trial.⁴² A later reading covers those options; the point here is to recognize the form. The jury still decides who wins, and the device still costs the court the work of drafting clear questions and coping with unclear answers.⁴³

The cross-check earns its keep when the two halves disagree. Had the Okafor jury answered no to the negligence question yet marked for the plaintiff, the conflict would show on the face of the papers. A plain general verdict, with one line and a sum, could never reveal that mismatch.

The direction to do both defines the form. The court must charge the jury on the law, as in any general verdict case, explain the questions well enough to be answered in writing, and direct the jury to do both. Drop the direction and the form changes. A jury told only to answer questions never decides who prevails, and its form is a special verdict.⁴⁴ A jury told only to return a verdict produces no findings, and the court has nothing to test the result against.

Take the contract form from the last section and add a line for plaintiff or defendant, a charge on the governing law, and a direction to complete the line and answer the three questions. The same questions now sit inside a Rule 49(b)(1) form. Before, they were findings for the judge to apply; now they are a check on the jury's own decision.

Identifying the Verdict Returned

Classifying a verdict means asking what the jury was told to do. Rule 49(a)(1) describes a special verdict as one in which the court requires the jury to return only a special written finding on each issue of fact, and Rule 49(b)(1) describes the hybrid as a general verdict form submitted with written questions and a direction to do both.⁴⁶ Both descriptions look to the jury's task, so classification means reading the instructions and the form together and asking who applies the law and who announces the winner.

The classification matters because each form carries its own procedures. A fact issue left off a special verdict form can cost a party its jury on that issue unless the party demands submission before the jury retires,⁴⁷ and a general verdict with written questions has a procedure for answers that conflict with the verdict.⁴⁸ A court cannot choose the right procedure until it knows which form came back.

Findings of fact cannot sort the forms, because more than one of them contains findings. Little difference may exist between answers to questions posed under Rule 49(a) and answers to written interrogatories under Rule 49(b), since each procedure focuses the jury on the facts that must be found.⁴⁹ The jury's last task separates them, and the test starts there.

Step one does most of the work. Mason identified deciding which party prevails as the most essential function that marks a general verdict, and a jury that applies the law to its findings performs it; no other feature of the form changes that.⁵⁰ Step two sorts general verdicts into the plain kind and the hybrid by looking for the express direction to do both, which is the textual mark of Rule 49(b)(1).⁵¹ Step three applies only when step one fails, since a jury that never decides the winner has left the law to the court.

Step one resolves the case. The instructions and the form required the jury to apply the law and decide who prevails on each theory, so the verdict is general. Step two finds no written fact questions and no direction to answer them, so it is a plain general verdict, reported theory by theory. The separate lines make the form detailed, but detail is not a finding of fact. Delete the winner lines, add three fact questions, and tell the jury to leave the law to the judge, and the same case yields a special verdict under Rule 49(a).

The word interrogatories causes the usual error on an exam. Written questions appear in both the special verdict and the hybrid, so their presence cannot decide between Rule 49(a) and Rule 49(b). The deciding facts are whether the jury was also directed to return a verdict and whether it was instructed on the law to apply.⁵²

Some forms resist even this test. In Turyna, the court found the returned verdict internally inconsistent and the form itself hopelessly confused, and it reversed and remanded for a new trial.⁵³ Mason cites Turyna as an example of how classification, which should be a simple matter, too often is not.⁵⁴ When a form is muddled, go back to the instructions, which show who was meant to apply the law and whether the jury was meant to pick a winner.