Opinion ID: 166827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Verdict Inconsistencies

Text: -12- With the exception of Mr. Gorog, the jury returned the following verdict (the “Apportionment Verdict”) for each homeowner: APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT []Taking as 100 percent the combined fault that caused the damages or losses, what percentage of plaintiff’s damages was caused by the fault of each person or entity identified below. Enter the figure of zero, “0” for any person or entity who you have found to be not at fault. Goodyear: 50% Heatway: 50% Other non-parties: 0% See J.A. at 802-942. The jury found in favor of Heatway on all claims asserted against it as a party, including violation of the CCPA, civil conspiracy, and fraud (the “No Liability Verdict”). Homeowners maintain “[t]hese findings necessarily meant that Heatway was not at fault — and [the Apportionment Verdict’s instruction] to ‘enter zero’ for any party found not to be at fault was applicable.” (Aplt. Op. Br. at 19). Homeowners therefore argue that the jury’s allocation of fifty percent fault in the Apportionment Verdict is irreconcilably inconsistent with the No Liability Verdict and “the correct resolution is to disregard the Apportionment Verdict as surplusage and give effect only to the jury’s finding that Heatway was not at fault.” Id. The district court rejected the Homeowners’ argument that the jury was -13- somehow precluded from assessing fault to Heatway. It concluded that Goodyear was not required to cross-claim against Heatway and prevail on claims against it in order to have the jury instructed as to apportionment of fault. In any event, the district court observed that Homeowners never objected to the verdict forms on this basis. The district court further reasoned: Plaintiffs did not pursue claims against Heatway based on the sale of a defective product, negligence or negligent failure to warn – the very claims upon which the jury found Goodyear liable. Here, it is not only plausible, but likely that the jury concluded Heatway and Goodyear to both be ‘at-fault’ for negligence, negligent failure to warn, and sale of a defective product, but not liable for violation of the CCPA or for civil conspiracy. The verdict is wholly consistent. . . J.A. at 1880-81. We agree. Homeowners attempt to manufacture a conflict where one does not exist. As noted, the instruction within the Apportionment Verdict actually stated that the jury was to “enter zero for any person or entity found not at fault,” not “any party found not at fault.” J.A. at 802-942 (emphasis supplied). The actual instruction properly preserves the distinction between Heatway’s role as a party to certain claims and a nonparty to other claims. Although Heatway was found not liable for the claims asserted against it as a party (CCPA, civil conspiracy and fraud), the jury was still required to address its “fault” as a nonparty to the claims successfully asserted against Goodyear (sale of a defective product, negligence, and negligent failure to warn). Thus, the verdicts are not irreconcilably -14- inconsistent.