GA Code § 9-11-49 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 11 - Civil Practice Act|Article 6 - Trials|§ 9-11-49. Special Verdicts

 9-11-52. Findings by the court.   Cross references.   - Submission to jury of issues of fact in proceedings pursuant to petition for declaratory judgment, §§ 9-4-5,9-4-6.   U.S. Code.   - For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 49, see 28 U.S.C.   Law reviews.   - For article, "The Special Verdict in Civil Cases," see 6 Ga. B.J. 5 (1943). For article discussing liability of corporate directors, officers, and shareholders under the Georgia Business Corporation Code, and as affected by provisions of the Georgia Civil Practice Act, see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 277 (1971). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 405 (2006).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Discretion of court.    - It is within the court's discretion as to whether the court will require a special verdict under this section. Christiansen v. Robertson, 139 Ga. App. 423, 228 S.E.2d 350, rev'd on other grounds, 237 Ga. 711, 229 S.E.2d 472 (1976).    Because a special verdict form did not ask the jurors to determine whether the successor owed anything on a promissory note, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-49(a), the issue was reserved for the trial court. Compris Techs., Inc. v. Techwerks, Inc., 274 Ga. App. 673, 618 S.E.2d 664 (2005).    Trial court erred in granting a new trial, pursuant to the standard of review under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-50 and5-5-51, to appellee insurer in appellant insurer's declaratory judgment action, after the jury rendered a verdict pursuant to a special verdict form in favor of the appellant, since the form was not defective for including the words "coverage is excluded because" prior to the four potential fact-findings in favor of the appellant; the wording of the form may have been inartful and had mixed questions of law with the factual assertions, but such did not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion as no mandate forbade the use of the language, and the trial court acted within the court's discretion and authority pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-49(a). Gov't Emples. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 275 Ga. App. 872, 622 S.E.2d 92 (2005).    Portion of the trial court's judgment regarding the ultimate location of the easement was vacated because the trial court abused the court's discretion in limiting the jury's consideration of evidence showing earlier locations of the easement at issue since some evidence was presented at trial that the easement was relocated by agreement of the parties to several different routes during the period in question. R. C. Acres, Inc. v. Cambridge Faire Props., LLC, 331 Ga. App. 762, 771 S.E.2d 444 (2015).   Submission for general rather than special verdict not reversible absent abuse of discretion.    - This section provides that court "may" require jury to return a special verdict on written questions, and absent abuse of discretion, the appellate court would not reverse the trial judge in submitting the case for a general rather than a special verdict. Pressley v. Jennings, 227 Ga. 366, 180 S.E.2d 896 (1971); Shivers v. Webster, 224 Ga. App. 254, 480 S.E.2d 304 (1997).    Requirements of special verdict are not met by instructing jury orally as to questions which must be resolved by the jury in arriving at the verdict. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wall, 242 Ga. 176, 249 S.E.2d 588 (1978).    When timely written request for special verdict is made in declaratory judgment proceedings, requirements of Ga. L. 1945, p. 137, § 3 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-4-6), relating to submission of fact issues to jury, and of subsection (b) of Ga. L. 1972, p. 689, § 8 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-11-49) are not satisfied by instructing jury orally as to questions which must be resolved by the jury in arriving at the verdict. Frostgate Whses., Inc. v. Cole, 244 Ga. 782, 262 S.E.2d 98 (1979).   Special verdict form agreed to by all parties.    - There was no error in the court's explanation to the jury of the special verdict form which previously had been agreed to by all parties, including the defendant, when the evidence required a finding of negligence on the part of at least one defendant, as this was not an incident that could have occurred in the absence of negligence. Branch v. Maxwell, 203 Ga. App. 553, 417 S.E.2d 176, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 905, 417 S.E.2d 176 (1992).    Absent specific and timely objection, party waives error relating to manner of submission of questions to jury. Frostgate Whses., Inc. v. Cole, 244 Ga. 782, 262 S.E.2d 98 (1979).    Appellant's failure to object to special verdict form until after the jury had retired constituted a waiver of rights to do so. Albert v. Albert, 164 Ga. App. 783, 298 S.E.2d 612 (1982).   Charge on proximate cause not waived for failure to make request therefor.    - Rule in subsection (a) of this section that matters not requested to be charged when special verdicts are submitted to the jury are waived obviously does not extend to an element so essential as proximate cause in a negligence action because no jury can impose liability in such action without first determining that the plaintiff's injury proximately resulted from the defendant's negligence. Cline v. Kehs, 146 Ga. App. 350, 246 S.E.2d 329 (1978).    Trial court trying a suit for injunction may empanel a jury to render special verdicts, but the court is not required to do so. Turner Adv. Co. v. Garcia, 251 Ga. 46, 302 S.E.2d 547 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S. Ct. 101, 83 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1984).   Acceptance of verdict with surplus findings.    - When prior to submission to the jury the plaintiffs agreed to the form of the general verdict, and did not request a special verdict, the court could have accepted the initial verdict by disregarding the specific and gratuitous findings as surplusage. Kemp v. Bell-View, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 577, 346 S.E.2d 923 (1986).   Attack on verdict rejected upon failure to seek remedy under statute.    - Verdict awarding general damages in a libel suit filed by an attorney against a former client, which showed that the client published facts intimating that the attorney bribed judges, contrary to O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2, was upheld as: (1) the jury could reasonably conclude that the attorney was a limited public figure, and was properly charged on that status; (2) the client failed to seek any remedy regarding the verdict entered, including submission of a verdict form per O.C.G.A. § 9-11-49; (3) the trial court did not err in prohibiting the client from offering testimony about corrupt individuals who were exposed as a result of the publication about the attorney; and (4) based on the evidence of the publication on the client's web site, neither a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the client's favor was authorized. Milum v. Banks, 283 Ga. App. 864, 642 S.E.2d 892 (2007).   No error in court's refusal to submit special verdict form.    - See News Publishing Co. v. DeBerry, 171 Ga. App. 787, 321 S.E.2d 112 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1053, 105 S. Ct. 2112, 85 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1985); Tri-Eastern Petro. Corp. v. Glenn's Super Gas, Inc., 178 Ga. App. 144, 342 S.E.2d 346 (1986); Doctors Hosp. v. Bonner, 195 Ga. App. 152, 392 S.E.2d 897 (1990).   Conforming special verdict to judgment.    - Portion of the trial court's judgment regarding the ultimate location of the easement was vacated and remanded with direction that the trial court amend the judgment to conform to the jury's verdict and the evidence, to make the description of the easement sufficiently certain because the evidence existed in the record and the trial court indicated the court's intention to incorporate it in the judgment, but did not do so. R. C. Acres, Inc. v. Cambridge Faire Props., LLC, 331 Ga. App. 762, 771 S.E.2d 444 (2015).    Cited in McLarty v. Springfield Life Ins. Co., 223 Ga. 707, 157 S.E.2d 735 (1967); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Austin, 120 Ga. App. 430, 170 S.E.2d 840 (1969); Berry v. Cordell, 120 Ga. App. 844, 172 S.E.2d 848 (1969); Stevens v. Stevens, 227 Ga. 410, 181 S.E.2d 34 (1971); Harris v. Hardman, 133 Ga. App. 941, 212 S.E.2d 883 (1975); Lewis v. Williford, 235 Ga. 558, 221 S.E.2d 14 (1975); Nordmann v. International Follies, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 77, 250 S.E.2d 794 (1978); Hurston v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 148 Ga. App. 324, 250 S.E.2d 886 (1978); Weatherspoon v. K-Mart Enters. of Ga., Inc., 149 Ga. App. 424, 254 S.E.2d 418 (1979); Miller v. Roses' Stores, Inc., 151 Ga. App. 158, 259 S.E.2d 162 (1979); Nestle Co. v. J.H. Ewing & Sons, 153 Ga. App. 328, 265 S.E.2d 61 (1980); Rewis v. Browning, 153 Ga. App. 352, 265 S.E.2d 316 (1980); Horne v. Drachman, 247 Ga. 802, 280 S.E.2d 338 (1981); Southern Educators Assocs. v. Silver, 245 Ga. 520, 284 S.E.2d 3 (1981); Cawthon v. Douglas County, 248 Ga. 760, 286 S.E.2d 30 (1982); Thorpe v. Benham, 161 Ga. App. 116, 289 S.E.2d 275 (1982); Borenstein v. Blumenfeld, 250 Ga. 606, 299 S.E.2d 727 (1983); C & W Land Dev. Corp. v. Kaminsky, 175 Ga. App. 774, 334 S.E.2d 362 (1985); Omni Express, Inc. v. Cleveland Express, Inc., 178 Ga. App. 42, 341 S.E.2d 911 (1986); Union Camp Corp. v. Helmy, 258 Ga. 263, 367 S.E.2d 796 (1988); Hill v. Cochran, 258 Ga. 473, 371 S.E.2d 94 (1988); Graves v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 190 Ga. App. 690, 379 S.E.2d 638 (1989); Mitchell v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co., 194 Ga. App. 218, 390 S.E.2d 79 (1990); Southern Water Techs., Inc. v. Kile, 224 Ga. App. 717, 481 S.E.2d 826 (1997); John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, 227 Ga. App. 538, 489 S.E.2d 527 (1997); Whelan v. Moone, 242 Ga. App. 795, 531 S.E.2d 727 (2000).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 75B Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, §§ 1507, 1508, 1577 et seq., 1590 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 35B C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, § 1030 et seq. 89 C.J.S., Trial, § 1095 et seq.   ALR.    - Verdict as affected by agreement in advance among jurors to abide by less than unanimous vote, 73 A.L.R. 93.    Effect of failure of special verdict or special finding to include findings of all ultimate facts or issues, 76 A.L.R. 1137.    Failure of one or more jurors to join in answer to special interrogatory or special verdict as affecting verdict, 155 A.L.R. 586.   Reversible effect of informing jury of the effect that their answers to special interrogatories or special issues may have upon ultimate liability or judgment, 90 A.L.R.2d 1040.   Withdrawal of written special interrogatories or special questions submitted to jury, 91 A.L.R.2d 776.