Opinion ID: 704786
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver Regarding Inconsistent Jury Verdict

Text: 25 Tow Boat argues that because Smith's trial attorney agreed to accept the jury's verdict if the court polled them on the issue of Tow Boat's negligence, Smith should now be precluded from arguing the verdict is inconsistent. After the verdict was received, the following exchange took place at sidebar: 26 MR. MOSS: I think it is inconsistent that they award him damages and assess contributory negligence and, you know, they presuppose a finding in favor, that they didn't understand what they were doing.... 27 THE COURT: What is your proposal if you don't want to upset the verdict? 28 MR. MOSS: To let them know that--to ask them if--to inquire as to where they got the 10 percent. Your finding of contributory negligence is inconsistent with 90 percent and is inconsistent with the finding of no negligence on the part of the plaintiff [defendant?]. 29 THE COURT: It is not inconsistent with it. 30 MR. MOSS: No, it is not inconsistent with that. I will agree with that. Those I would think were inconsistent with unseaworthiness. 31 THE COURT: What if we polled them on the liability question first? And if they are in favor, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant? 32 MR. MOSS: Then they all just answer do you agree that the answer is no to that. Yeah, let's do that. I will accept that. I will give up beating this horse. 33 THE COURT: All right. 34 [SSER RT 3-19-93 at 25-28.] 35 Smith claims that his counsel's agreement to the court's polling proposal should not operate as a waiver because it was clear that the district court believed the verdict was not inconsistent and would not send the jury back to reconcile it. Since counsel's argument had twice been rejected, Smith argues, he had no choice but to agree to polling the jury in the last ditch hope that some of them would reply there was negligence on the part of the defendant. 36 We hold that Smith waived his inconsistent verdict argument. While it is true that Smith's counsel twice voiced his objections to the inconsistent verdict, he apparently abandoned his argument when presented with the polling option. He did not assert that polling the jury would not resolve his concerns, and failed to complain of the inconsistency after the polling was complete. The district court relied on his acquiescence; otherwise the Court could have taken further steps such as instructing the jurors to deliberate further. [SER CR 81 at 3.] 37