 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Evans v. Wintrow9/30/2005
the obviously inadequate special interrogatories provided to them. The parties have not, and indeed cannot, challenge the adequacy of these interrogatories because, as far as this record shows, they participated in their preparation and approved submitting them to the jury. However, we are convinced that if the jury went astray, it was led astray by the special interrogatories they were provided.
The purpose of special interrogatories, like a trial court's jury instructions, is to provide the jury with legal guidance for its deliberations. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 49 gives a trial court great latitude in preparing and using special verdict forms and special interrogatories. Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901, 910 (Tenn. 1999). However, when a court decides to use a special verdict form or special interrogatories, it is required to make sure that its instructions and the special interrogatories or special verdict form, when considered together, present the contested legal issues to the jury in an unclouded way. Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Prior to the beginning of the trial on September 30, 2002, both Ms. Evans and Mr. Jernigan submitted proposed special interrogatories to the trial court. Ms. Evans proposed thirteen questions, and Mr. Jernigan proposed four. Based on these drafts, the trial court prepared ten special interrogatories of its own. Five of the interrogatories were based on interrogatories Ms. Evans had proposed, and five were based on interrogatories proposed by Mr. Jernigan. Regrettably, the ten special interrogatories actually submitted to the jury were duplicative, ambiguous, and contained elements of claims that had either not been pled or had not been tried by consent. Rather than aiding the jury in its deliberations, these interrogatories could only have obfuscated the issues for the jury to decide.
B. The Breach of Contract Claim
The first special interrogatory addressed Ms. Evans's breach of contract claim and was patterned after the special interrogatory submitted by Mr. Jernigan. As answered by the jury, this interrogatory appeared as follows:
1. Was there a contract involving Ms. Evans and Mr. Jernigan?
X YES NO
[If you answered "NO", then go to Question #2. Otherwise, proceed to answer questions A- B.]
A. If there was a contract involving Ms. Evans and Mr. Jernigan, was the contract dated (select one):
X January 9, 1998
December 31, 1997
B. If Mr. Jernigan was a party to a contract with Ms. Evans, did either Mr. Jernigan or Ms. Evans breach the contract?
Did Mr. Jernigan breach the contract?
X YES NO
Did Ms. Evans breach the contract?
X YES NO
[If you answered either "YES" or "NO" as to both Mr. Jernigan and Ms. Evans, or if you answered "NO" as to Mr. Jernigan, then go to Question #2. Otherwise, proceed to answer the following questions.]
i. Did Ms. Evans suffer any damages as a result of Mr. Jernigan's breaching the contract?
X YES NO
ii. If Ms. Evans suffered damages as a result of Mr. Jernigan's breach, what is the amount of those damages? $10,000.00
Question 1(B) asked the jury whether either Mr. Jernigan or Ms. Evans breached the January 9, 1998 contract and instructed the jury to skip the remaining questions regarding breach of contract damages if it answered Question 1(B) either "yes" or "no" with regard to both parties. The jury responded that both Mr. Jernigan and Ms. Evans had breached the January 9, 1998 contract and, contrary to the explicit instructions follow
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|