§49.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§49.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

Answers to specific questions by a jury can constitute a general verdict if they resolve the ultimate liability questions. Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 Wn.2d. 907, 918, 32P.3d250 (2001).

"When the jury's answers are consistent with each other, but not consistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict." Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 101 Wn.App. 777,799,6 p.3d583 (2000), aff'd, 144 Wn.2d 907, 32P.3d250 (2001). The court will harmonize the verdict to the extent possible, and the responses to special interrogatories prevail over the inconsistent implications of a general verdict. Id. at 799-80 (citing cases).

Neither a trial court nor an appellate court may substitute its judgment for that which is within the exclusive province of the jury. Therefore, if the jury's answers to special interrogatories are irreconcilably inconsistent and it is impossible to determine the jury's verdict, the only appropriate remedy is a new trial. Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wn.App. 949, 954-64, 973 P.2d 1110 (1999), review denied, 139 Wn.2d 1025 (2000) (citing Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc'y, 124Wn.2d 121, 875 P.2d 621 (1994)); see also Alvarez v. Keyes, 76 Wn.App. 741, 743, 887 P.2d 496 (1995); Blue Chelan, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 101 Wn.2d 512, 515, 681 P.2d 233 (1984).

In Sherwood B. Korssjoen, Inc. v. Heiman, 52 Wn.App. 843, 765P.2d301 (1988), the jury failed to answer some of the special interrogatories. The court ruled that because the unanswered interrogatories were not determinative, the failure to answer them did not support grounds for a new trial.

In Bundrick v. Stewart, 128 Wn.App. 11, 19, 114P.3d1204 (2005), the trial court granted summary judgment to one defendant on the issue of informed consent in a medical malpractice action. After a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against another defendant, that defendant appealed, and plaintiff cross appealed the summary judgment ruling. Although the appellate court found that summary judgment had been improper, it did not reverse because the jury's special verdict on the informed consent issue was dispositive on the claim.

On appeal, special verdict forms are reviewed under the same standard as jury instructions. They are considered in their entirety and are sufficient if they (1) permit each party to argue his or her theory of the case; (2) are not misleading; and...