Opinion ID: 555084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers.

Text: 46 The following interrogatory was submitted to the jury: 47 4. Do you find that the original injuries sustained by Elaine Munn combined with her unreasonable refusal of blood to cause her death? Answer: ______ 48 Enter Yes or No 49 If your answer to this interrogatory is Yes, what percentage did Elaine Munn's unreasonable refusal of blood contribute to her death? ____ percent (%) 50 The jury answered yes to the first part and 100% to the second. Munn contends that these answers are inconsistent and consequently that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. More specifically, Munn argues that because his wife's original injuries combined with her refusal of blood to cause her death (according to the jury's answer to the first part of the question), her refusal to take blood could not possibly constitute 100% of the cause of her death. 51 When a litigant claims that the jury's answers to interrogatories are inconsistent, the seventh amendment compels the district court to seek a view of the case which makes the jury's answers consistent. Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 915 (5th Cir.1973). 15 The court properly applied this test, holding that the jury's answers were consistent with one another and with the applicable instruction. 16 Munn v. Algee, 730 F.Supp. at 27-28. 52 We agree with the court's conclusion. These answers do not conflict; instead, they reflect the entirely plausible view that although both the injury and the refusal were causal factors in Mrs. Munn's death, she would have survived had she taken the blood. 17 We accordingly affirm the court's denial of Munn's motion for a new trial insofar as that motion rested on this foundation. 53