Opinion ID: 783131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General and special verdicts

Text: 38 As an initial matter, and one that is not inconsequential to the legal analysis of these claims, the parties disagree as to the nature of the verdicts at issue. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly contemplate two types of verdicts, special verdicts, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a), and general verdicts with interrogatories, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b), and implicitly contemplate common law general verdicts without interrogatories. Both special verdicts and interrogatories comprise only factual findings; a special verdict is in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact, Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(a), and interrogatories are returned upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict, Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b). 39 The Federal Rules do not define general verdicts, but they imply that general verdicts do not involve factual findings but rather ultimate legal conclusions. See id. This view is of course consistent with the common law and our own caselaw; in Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991), we held that the theoretical distinction between general and special verdicts is that general verdicts require the jury to apply the law to the facts, and therefore require legal instruction, whereas special verdicts compel the jury to focus exclusively on its fact-finding role. Id. at 1395. Black's defines a general verdict as [a] verdict whereby the jury find either for the plaintiff or for the defendant in general terms. Black's Law Dictionary 1560 (6th ed.1990). Thus in a general verdict the jury announces only the prevailing party on a particular claim, and may announce damages. 40 A jury may return multiple general verdicts as to each claim, and each party, in a lawsuit, without undermining the general nature of its verdicts. See, e.g., 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2504.1 (2d ed. Supp.2003) (In cases involving multiple claims ... or defendants, the district court may ... have the jury render multiple general verdicts.). Although some general verdicts are more general than others, encompassing multiple claims, the key is not the number of questions on the verdict form, but whether the jury announces the ultimate legal result of each claim. If the jury announces only its ultimate conclusions, it returns an ordinary general verdict; if it makes factual findings in addition to the ultimate legal conclusions, it returns a general verdict with interrogatories. If it returns only factual findings, leaving the court to determine the ultimate legal result, it returns a special verdict. 41 These terms are not adequate to capture every answer that a jury may give. In addition to the ultimate legal conclusion in a case, a jury may make legal conclusions as to subsidiary issues, such as affirmative defenses, or the amount of damages owed, which are neither findings of fact nor quite verdicts. Such answers are similar in kind to general verdicts, because they require application of the law to the facts, but we have found no precise label for them. 42 In this case, the jury returned general verdicts, with separate determinations as to damages, for nearly every claim, making virtually no factual findings. Of the thirteen questions on the verdict form, eleven were either of the form Do you find for [the] plaintiff? or What total amount of [damages] [punitive damages] [lost wages] do you award? All of the discrimination claims were disposed of by such questions; therefore, each of the alleged inconsistencies in the discrimination claims arises between two general verdicts. 43 The only area in which the jury made factual findings relates to double damages. After finding that the defendants were liable for lost wages on Zhang's breach of contract claim, the jury was asked two questions: Do you find that any wages or benefits were willfully withheld with intent to deprive plaintiff of wages or benefits required by the contract? and What amount of wages or benefits were willfully withheld during the period from the date of termination until September 29, 1999? On this one issue the jury returned a special verdict, leaving to the trial court the duty to apply the law and determine that Zhang was entitled to double damages for all wages and benefits willfully withheld. With respect to double damages, therefore, the appellants allege an inconsistency between a subsidiary legal conclusion (the award of damages for breach of contract) and one of the factual findings in a special verdict (the amount of wages willfully withheld). 44