 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morales v. Golston12/15/2005
ing body to reconsider the inconsistency.
In contrast, if the verdict is a special verdict and the inconsistency would not be resubmitted to the jury in any event, the same temporal efficiencies are not present, and there is no equitable reason to require a timely objection.
Whether plaintiff's failure to object constitutes a waiver thus hinges on the characterization of the verdicts as either special verdicts or general verdicts with answers to special interrogatories. We conclude that the verdicts here were special verdicts for the following reasons.
First, the verdict forms submitted to the jury were captioned as special verdicts.
Second, Colorado requires the use of a special verdict in tort cases involving multiple defendants. See § 13-21-111.5(2), C.R.S. 2005 (requiring that a jury return a special verdict "determining the percentage of negligence or fault attributable to each of the parties"); Miller v. Byrne, 916 P.2d 566, 578 (Colo. App. 1995) (§ 13-21-111.5(2) "directs that the jury must return a special verdict determining the percentage of negligence or fault attributable to each of the parties and forbids the use of a general verdict. These provisions are mandatory."); see also Bohrer v. DeHart, 961 P.2d 472, 476 (Colo. 1998) ("Special verdict forms focus the jury on the essential issues attendant to a finding of liability -- total damages and the relative fault of the parties.").
Finally, the hallmark of a general verdict is that it requires the jury to announce the "ultimate legal result of each claim." Johnson v. Ablt Trucking Co., supra, 412 F.3d at 1142 (quoting Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003)). Simply put, a general verdict permits the jury to decide who wins. Johnson v. Ablt Trucking Co., supra.
A special verdict, by contrast, presents the jury with specific questions of fact. Johnson v. Ablt Trucking Co., supra. After the jury returns its verdict, the court applies the law to the facts found by the jury and enters judgment accordingly. Johnson v. Ablt Trucking Co., supra.
Here, the verdict forms required the jury to answer specific questions of fact regarding fault and damages, and the judgments themselves required application of the law by the court to the facts found by the jury. The jury therefore returned special verdicts. Because the verdicts were special, plaintiff's failure to object was not a waiver of her right to raise on appeal any inconsistency in the verdicts.
In any event, even if these verdicts could be characterized as a general verdict with special interrogatories, plaintiff would be entitled to appeal on the basis that the evidence did not support the verdict.
B.
Turning to the merits of the appeal, we reject plaintiff's contention that the jury's verdicts are inconsistent or unsupported by the evidence.
A jury verdict will not be reversed for inconsistency if a reading of the record reveals any basis for the verdict. The task of the reviewing court is to examine the instructions, the verdict forms, and the evidence and to determine from the record whether there was competent evidence from which the jury logically could have reached its verdict. Also, if there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers consistent, they must be resolved in that way. Rodriguez v. Morgan County R.E.A., Inc., 878 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1994).
We note that the verdict here is not inconsistent on its face because a finding of negligence does not create liability on the part of a defendant unless that negligence caused the plaintiff's injury. See City of Aurora v. Loveless, 639 P.2d 1061 (Colo. 19
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|