Opinion ID: 2305456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Purported Jury Intent

Text: [¶ 22] Question 9 on the verdict form stated: To what dollar amount is the total amount of damages found in your answer to question no. 8 to be reduced after deducting a just and equitable sum having regard to the negligence of Ralph Walker, Jr.? Patricia attempted to offer affidavits to show that the jury intended to reduce the wrongful death damages by $32,000 rather than to $32,000. She claims that the court should have entered judgment for her in the amount of $1,244,523.40. [3] She contends that the verdict is irrational and, therefore, the jury could not have intended it. [¶ 23] Two of our cases with similar facts are relevant. In Cyr v. Michaud, 454 A.2d 1376, 1379 (Me.1983), the jury, in response to an almost identical question on the verdict form, reduced the plaintiff's damages by $20,000, from $100,000 to $80,000. The defendant contended that the verdict form was ambiguous and that the jury's intent  as shown in affidavits from all the jurors  was to reduce the damages by $80,000, from $100,000 to $20,000. We held that the defendant could not now complain about the verdict form since he had helped draft it, that in any event the form was not ambiguous, and that the affidavits were inadmissible to show a mistake in the jury's verdict. Id. at 1380-81, 1384. [¶ 24] More recently, in Taylor v. Lapomarda, 1997 ME 216, ¶¶ 3, 4, 702 A.2d 685, 686, the jury reduced the plaintiff's damages by $8000, from $8500 to $500. After the jury was discharged, the jurors returned, stated that they had made a mistake, and sent the trial court a note indicating that they had intended to reduce the damages by $500, from $8500 to $8000. Id. ¶ 4, 702 A.2d at 686. The court denied the plaintiff's request to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, and we affirmed, holding that under Cyr the jury note provided no basis to disturb the verdict. Id. ¶¶ 7-10, 702 A.2d at 687-89. [¶ 25] Cyr and Taylor are controlling here. There was no admissible evidence to indicate that the jury did not intend the result indicated by the unambiguous verdict form, and the court would not have been justified in entering judgment as requested by Patricia. Patricia points out that the 98% reduction of damages in this case is greater than in any of the reported decisions. [4] That fact, however, when combined with the potentially confusing jury instructions, the jury's first mistaken attempt to enter a verdict, and the other factors mentioned by the trial court in ordering the new trial, was further reason to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.