Opinion ID: 2581350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: verdict form and interrogatories

Text: We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn in this case, do unanimously find as follows: 1a. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant TETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 was negligent? Yes x No _____ If your answer above is yes move to question 1b. If your answer above is no sign the verdict form and give it to the bailiff. 1b. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such negligence was a cause of the injuries to plaintiff, JESSICA GARNICK. Yes x No _____ If your answer above is yes move to question 2a. If your answer above is no sign the verdict form and give it to the bailiff. 2a. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff JESSICA GARNICK was negligent? Yes x No _____ If your answer above is yes move to question 2b. If your answer above is no move to question 4. 2b. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such negligence was a cause of the injuries to plaintiff, JESSICA GARNICK. Yes x No _____ If your answer above is yes move to question 3. If your answer above is no move to question 4. 3. Considering all of the fault at 100%, what percentage of the total fault is attributable to each of the following for the negligence claims only? A. Defendant School District (0% to 100%) 50% ___ B. Plaintiff Jessica Garnick (0% to 100%) 50% ___ Total 100% ____ (the total must equal 100%) If you find that Jessica Garnick's fault is greater than 50%, sign the verdict and return it to the baileff [ sic ]. If you find that Jessica Garnick's fault is less than or equal to 50%, Please go on to question 4. 4. Without considering the percentage of fault attributed as above, what total amount of damages do you find was sustained by Plaintiff Jessica Garnick (Note, the Judge will make appropriate deductions for fault attributable to the plaintiff, Jessica Garnick, if any) 250,000.00 $ 150,000.00 ____________ [¶ 22] The verdict form was, of course, dated and signed by the foreperson of the jury. The second to the last instruction given to the jury (Instruction No. 20) was as follows: This case must be determined on the basis of comparative fault. In deciding the case you will need to know the meaning of the terms negligence and fault. When the word negligence is used in these instructions, it means the failure to use ordinary care. Ordinary care means the degree of care which might reasonably be expected of the ordinary careful person under the same or similar circumstances. The law does not say how such an ordinary careful person would act. That is for you to decide. A person is at fault when that person is negligent and that person's negligence is a cause of the injury or damages for which the claim is made. It will be necessary for you to determine the percentage of fault, if any, of each of the persons involved in the occurrence. It also will be necessary for you to determine the amount of damages sustained by any party claiming damages. Your findings as to fault will affect the plaintiff's recovery. It is my duty to explain how that may occur. The defendant's liability for damages is limited by the percentage of fault, if any, that you find is attributable to the defendant. The recovery for the plaintiff is reduced by the percentage of fault, if any, that you find attributable to the plaintiff, Jessica Garnick. Should you determine that plaintiff, Jessica Garnick's, fault exceeds fifty percent, the plaintiff will not be entitled to recover any damages. In explaining the consequences of your verdict, the court has not meant to imply that any person is at fault. That is for you to decide in conformity with these instructions. [¶ 23] The case was submitted to the jury, and the jury retired for its deliberations at 2:03 p.m. on November 9, 1999. The jury deliberated until late into the night. At 11:47 p.m. that same day, the trial court called the jury into the courtroom, apparently believing that the jury may have been unable to reach a verdict. The jury indicated that it was not having trouble reaching a verdict, and the trial court sent the jury back to the jury room to continue its deliberations at 11:53 p.m. The jury then returned to the courtroom at 12:12 a.m. on November 10, 1999, with a verdict. The verdict was read and, as shown above, the jury initially awarded Garnick $150,000.00 in damages. The jury was polled, and each juror acknowledged the verdict. The trial court then asked counsel if the jury should be polled further. Counsel for Garnick asked the trial court to ask the jury if its intended verdict was that Garnick receive only $75,000.00 in damages. This exchange then occurred in the courtroom: THE COURT: The result of your verdict, Ladies and Gentlemen, will be that Jessica Garnick recovers $75,000.00. That's what I will do, because you have found her to be 50% at fault. The amount that she will recover is $75,000.00 Is there anyonehow do I ask the question? (Pause.) Is anyone surprised by what I have just told you? (Several jurors responded by nods.) JUROR [W.][Foreperson]: Yes. THE COURT: Mrs. [W.], do you feel that you can speak for the entire Jury? JUROR [W.]: Yes. THE COURT: Is there someone that doesn't think Mrs. [W.] can speak for them? (No response.) You are surprised by the result, Mrs. [W.]? JUROR [W.]: Yes. THE COURT: What do you want me to do now counsel? MR. WILLIAMS: Give the verdict form back to the Jury and let themI would like to confer with Counsel before we  MR MEYER: They may need additional instruction, your Honor, to know the effect of the verdict. (Pause.) THE COURT: Sit down, Gentlemen. This is not the first time this has happened to me, folks, okay? Its [ sic ] instruction No. 20, which provides in pertinent part: It will be necessary for you to determine the percentage of fault, if any, of each of the persons involved in the occurrence. It also will be necessary for you to determine the amount of damages sustained by any party claiming damages. Your findings as to fault will affect the Plaintiff's recovery. It is my duty to explain how that may occur. The Defendant's liability for damages is limited by the percentage of fault, if any, that you find is attributable to the Defendant. The recovery for Plaintiff is reduced by the percentage of fault, if any, that you find attributable to the Plaintiff Jessica Garnick. Should you determine that Plaintiff Jessica Garnick's fault exceeds 50%, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to recover any damages. (Pause.) The verdict, please, Mrs. Hawkins. (Pause.) With respect to damages, the verdict provides in Question 4: Without considering the percentage of fault attributed as above, what total amount of damage damages do you find was sustained by Plaintiff Jessica Garnick? Note, the Judge will make appropriate deductions for fault attributable to the Plaintiff Jessica Garnick, if any. Now, I do not know for certain what your intent is. I do not want to know what your intent is. But Iand I want no discussion from you. I want no indication from any of you what your intent is, but I will give you my interpretation. My interpretation is that you wanted Jessica Garnick to have $150,000.00. I have no way of knowing whether I am right or whether I am wrong, but Ithat's what I think. And I believe that I must send you back, after having read these instructions and after having told you to consider all of the other instructions as well as the ones that I have read to you; and if you believe that your verdict needs to be corrected, then you shall correct it. If you do not believe that it should be corrected, you should not correct it. Now, I tell you those things because I recently had a jury in Uinta County where the verdict form was not correct. When I talked to the jury about what they meant to do in the jury verdict, they told me. Both parties knew what the Jury wanted done. There was a raging blizzard outside, so I sent the Jury home without sending them back to correct the verdict form and guess what? I'm going through a new trial because I didn't send the jury back to correct the verdict. And when I didn't do that, both sides said I won. I don't care what the Jury told you in open court, Judge. My side of the case won. I'm going to appeal. So I said, Well, if that's what you're going to do, we're going to have a new trial. And the Supreme Court said, Judge Troughton, you're right. Give them a new trial. So I think I have to send you back so that you can discuss among yourselves whether or not you think the verdict is a correct verdict, whether it expresses your intent or whether it doesn't; and to make whatever changes you think are necessary to the verdict. Mr. Williams, do you have any objection to that? MR. WILLIAMS: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Copenhaver? MR. COPENHAVER: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Now, with the parties' permission, I will tell the Jury that the simple thing for them to do is just to change the number in the last question. Is that all right with you, Mr. Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: How about it for you, Mr. Copenhaver? MR. COPENHAVER: If that's their intent, that's fine, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, because if that's not what you wanted her to haveif you wanted her to have $150,000, then you need to change that figure to $300,000. That's the simple solution. But you do what you believe is the appropriate thing to do. I am not instructing you to do anything because it's your decision; and it's something that you folks have to resolve because you're the judges of this, not me. All I can do is to try to make sure you understand things. I don't want any of you to think that I'm telling you what to do because I'm not. The last thing in the world that I want to do in this case is to do that to you folks. Because if I do that, I'm going to get an appeal. And I don't want an appeal in this case. I want it to be over. All right. Mr. Colter, will you take the Instructions and the Jury Verdict and have the Jury retire. We'll stand by, folks. [¶ 24] The jury then returned to continue its deliberations at 12:27 a.m. on November 10, 1999, and returned seven minutes later with its revised verdict. As shown above, the verdict was changed from $150,000.00 to $250,000.00. The Court did ask the jury foreperson if that was correct, and the response was Yes. The trial court said it would not further poll the jury. It then asked counsel for both parties if there was anything further, and both said No. The jury was then excused. A few minutes later, with the jury gone and after the trial court explained to counsel and Jessica Garnick herself that it would not have found Garnick to be 50% at fault and that he would have awarded her more money if it was up to him, counsel for Garnick lodged two objections to the verdict. The first was based on a theory that the jury still did not get the amount of damages right, i.e., it appeared to want her to have $150,000, but only changed its verdict to award $125,000. The second was to the effect that the trial court should have further polled the jury. The trial court's position was that both of those issues should have been raised before the jury was excused. [¶ 25] Garnick contends that this scenario clearly demonstrates profound confusion on the part of the jury, that the jury did not take enough time to seriously reflect on its modified verdict, and that the trial court should have allowed further polling of the jury. Taking into account all circumstances shown by the record, including the fact that Garnick failed to object to the trial court's decision not to further poll the jury or to specifically ask for such polling when the trial court gave the opportunity for such a request, we will not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.