Opinion ID: 2612814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Zoo's Duty To Warn

Text: [6] Having rejected the basis for the Court of Appeals' holding, we next decide whether the jury's special verdict is sustainable. For a general verdict, [t]he determinative issue is whether there was evidence or reasonable inferences arising therefrom to sustain a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The evidence must be considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Shelby v. Keck, 85 Wn.2d 911, 913, 541 P.2d 365 (1975). Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 120 Wn.2d 246, 261, 840 P.2d 860 (1992). Our review of a special verdict differs slightly from that of a general verdict. See CR 49(a) (Special Verdict). [3] If the jury's answers to the special interrogatories (the questions which constitute the special verdict) conflict, the court attempts to harmonize the answers. However, if the court cannot reconcile the answers, [n]either a trial court nor an appellate court may substitute its judgment for that which is within the province of the jury.... . [T]he only proper recourse is to remand the cause for a new trial. (Citations omitted.) Blue Chelan, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 101 Wn.2d 512, 515, 681 P.2d 233 (1984). The jury gave the following answers on the special verdict form: QUESTION NO. 1: What was the status of plaintiff Richard Tincani at the time he was climbing on the rock from which he fell at Walk In the Wild Zoo? (Check only one of the answers) Answer: Yes No (a) Trespasser ____ ____ (b) Licensee X ____ (c) Business Invitee ____ ____ QUESTION NO. 2: Were any of the following negligent? Answer yes or no after the name of the defendant and the name of each entity not a party to this action. Answer: Yes No Defendant: Walk In the Wild Zoo X ____ Entity: Moses Lake School District X ____ If you answer Question No. 2 no as to defendant Zoo, sign and return this verdict. If you answer Question No. 2 yes as to the defendant Zoo, then answer Question No. 3. QUESTION NO. 3: Was such negligence a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff? Answer yes or no after the name of the defendant and each entity, if any, found negligent by you in Question No. 2. Answer: Yes No Defendant: Walk In the Wild Zoo X ____ Entity: Moses Lake School District X ____ QUESTION NO. 5: Was the plaintiff, Richard Tincani, negligent or did he assume the risk of injury? Answer (yes) or (no) Answer: yes . . . . QUESTION NO. 8: Assume that 100 percent represents the total combined fault which proximately caused the plaintiff, Richard Tincani's injury. What percentage of this 100% is attributable to the plaintiff, Richard Tincani's, negligence and/or assumption of risk and what percentage of this 100% is attributable to the defendant and entity whose negligence was found by you in Question No. 3 to have been the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, Richard Tincani? (Your total must equal 100%). Answer Percentage To Plaintiff: Richard Tincani 65% To Defendant: Walk In The Wild Zoo 25% To Entity: Moses Lake School District 10% Clerk's Papers (CP), at 266-68. The parties argue over the proper interpretation of these five answers. The Zoo claims it owed Tincani, a licensee, no duty to protect him from a natural condition with open and apparent dangers. According to the Zoo, once the jury ruled Tincani was a licensee, the jury, as a matter of law, had to answer no to question 2. Absent the existence of a duty to Tincani, the Zoo could not be negligent. In response, Tincani argues the jury could reasonably find the Zoo negligent for violations of duties owed to him as a business invitee. The special interrogatory does not indicate whether the Zoo breached a duty owed to Tincani while he was an invitee or licensee. Because the trial court properly instructed the jury on proximate causation, Tincani claims the jury could reasonably conclude violations of the Zoo's duties to Tincani as invitee were the proximate cause of his injuries. The parties' arguments raise two questions: Could the jury reasonably find the Zoo at fault for violating duties to Tincani (1) as a licensee, or (2) as an invitee? We conclude we cannot harmonize the jury's determination that Tincani was a licensee when he fell with its finding that the Zoo was negligent. Neither is sufficient to uphold the verdict. Therefore, we find an irreconcilable conflict among the jury's answers which only a new trial can resolve.