 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wielgus v. Dover Industries5/30/2000
whether the plaintiff has met its burden of proof with respect to each." Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901, 910 (Tenn. 1999). This the trial court has done, both on those issues where the plaintiff had the burden of proof and on those issues where the defendant had the burden of proof.
The verdict form used is not perfect. However, once it is determined that Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996), is not applicable as a predicate for joint and several liability between the manufacturer and the seller, the verdict form used by the trial court is adequate.
In construing a verdict, courts are to give effect to the intention of the jury.
Briscoe v. Allison, 200 Tenn. 115, 290 S.W.2d 864, 868 (1956). Briscoe holds that " f after an examination of the terms of the verdict the court is able to place a construction thereon that will uphold it, it is incumbent upon the court to do so." Id. Although a verdict may be defective in form, if it substantially defines an issue in such a way as to enable the court intelligently to pronounce a judgment thereon, it is sufficiently certain. Tennessee Central Ry. v. Scarbrough, 9 Tenn. App. 295, 299 (1928). Arcata Graphics Co. v. Heidelberg Harris, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 15, 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and costs are assessed against Appellants, Stephen F. Wielgus, Jr. and Jeanie K. Wielgus.
|