Opinion ID: 1706978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in its refusal to clarify the form of the verdict.

Text: ¶ 44. Valley Gas asserts that the jury's intent cannot be understood from the form of the verdict because the verdict was confusing and ambiguous, and therefore, the trial court erred by refusing to reform the form of the verdict. Valley Gas contends that the verdict should have reflected the specific dollar amount for each type of damages awarded to each plaintiff by the jury. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the verdict was sufficient in form and was an intelligent answer to the issues submitted to the jury and expressed in such a manner that the Court should have no doubt as to their intent. ¶ 45. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-157 states, No special form of verdict is required, and where there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law in rendering a verdict, a judgment shall not be arrested or reversed for mere want of form therein. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-157 (1972). This Court, in Harrison v. Smith , set fort the applicable test for determining whether a verdict is sufficient as follows: [T]he basic test with reference to whether or not a verdict is sufficient as to form is whether or not it is an intelligent answer to the issues submitted to the jury and expressed so that the intent of the jury can be understood by the court. This well-established rule of law has long been recognized by this Court.... Harrison v. Smith, 379 So.2d 517, 519 (Miss. 1980) (quoting Henson Ford, Inc. v. Crews, 249 Miss. 45, 160 So.2d 81, 85 (1964) (citations omitted)). ¶ 46. In Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage, 617 So.2d 248 (Miss.1993), this Court addressed a challenge to a jury verdict that did not specifically state each amount awarded to the plaintiff for the different elements of damages claimed in the original complaint, but instead, the jury verdict awarded only a general sum of money for all damages. Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage, 617 So.2d 248, 263 (Miss.1993). The Court held that it was well within the jury's province to award damages in this manner and explained that [n]ot knowing what persuaded the jury to award Prestage the amount of money that it did, any attempt to now separate the award into specific elements of damage would be pure speculation on our part. Prestage, 617 So.2d at 263-64. ¶ 47. In accordance with the relevant principles of law regarding the form of the verdict, the form of the verdict in this case was sufficient. The jury verdict awarded a lump sum of damages to each individual plaintiff, with the exception of a couple of joint awards, but did not apportion out the amount applicable to each type of damage awarded. We find that the form of the verdict was an intelligent answer to the issues presented to the jury and that the trial court could understand the jury's intent, and as a result, the trial court did not err by refusing to clarify the form of the verdict. See Harrison, 379 So.2d at 519. Furthermore, it was within the jury's province to award damages in this manner. See Prestage, 617 So.2d at 264. ¶ 48. However, as a result of finding that the jury's award of damages for mental anguish to all of the Plaintiffs was not supported by the evidence and in accordance with our holding in Prestage that any attempt to separate out the jury's award as to those Plaintiffs would amount to pure speculation, we accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages only as to the Plaintiffs listed above.