Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
11. Should the court enter the jury's final judgment for the plumber?
After a four-day trial, the judge instructed the jury to issue a verdict and also to answer two written questions: (i) «Was the dentist negligent?» and (ii) «Was there contributory negligence by the plumber?» The jury answered «yes» to both and returned a verdict in favor of the plumber, awarding him damages of $95,000. Neither party filed any post-verdict motions.
A plumber filed a jurisdictionally valid diversity lawsuit against a dentist in State A federal court. The plumber sought compensation for damages incurred in a car accident. The dentist defended on the ground of contributory negligence, which is a full defense in State A.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Erroneous verdicts may be set aside if the court believes that the jury did not follow its instructions properly.
Under FRCP 49(b), three scenarios are possible:
(i) if the facts are consistent with the verdict, the verdict will be entered;
(ii) if the findings of fact are inconsistent with the verdict, the judge may:
enter a judgment consistent with the interrogatory answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;direct the jury to deliberate further; ororder a new trial; OR (iii) if the answers are inconsistent with each other AND the verdict entered, the judge must send the case back to the jury for further deliberation or order a new trial.
C is correct. In this fact pattern, the judge has presented the jury with two questions: (i) was the dentist negligent; and (ii) was there contributory negligence by the plumber? The jury answered «yes» to both of these questions and awarded the plumber monetary damages.
The facts also state that traditional contributory negligence rules apply, which means that the plumber should not be able to recover at all if the jury finds him negligent. The jury has therefore entered a general verdict with inconsistent answers—one of the answers (that the plumber was contributorily negligent) is inconsistent with the verdict (in favor of the plumber with $95,000 in damages).
As a result, the court has various options, including that it may enter a judgment for the dentist, notwithstanding the verdict, because that would be consistent with the interrogatory answer that the plumber was contributorily negligent. As an aside, the court is also permitted to direct the jury to deliberate further or order a new trial under FRCP 49(b)(3).
A is incorrect. The court may not enter the jury's judgment as it stands. As explained above, the jury's answers were inconsistent with the verdict and award, so the court is required to enter judgment for the dentist notwithstanding the verdict (as indicated by the correct choice), order a new trial, or instruct the jury to deliberate further.
B is incorrect. The court may NOT enter the jury's judgment as it stands because the answers were partially inconsistent with the verdict and damages amount.
D is incorrect. The court may, but is not required to, order a new trial. Ordering a new trial is another option for the court to resolve the inconsistency between the jury's answers to the interrogatories and the verdict.