Opinion ID: 198474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Interrogatory Form

Text: 18 Drohan contends that the special interrogatory form improperly asked the jury to reach a legal conclusion as to Drohan's authorization to enter the basement. Drohan argues that the court should instead have asked the jury to determine the existence of duty triggering facts (such as whether the basement door was open), and then decided as a matter of law the ultimate issue of whether Drohan was a trespasser. The form read, in pertinent part: 19 Question 1. When the plaintiff entered the stairway leading to the basement was he: 20 _____ A lawful entrant who was authorized to enter the stairway or 21 _____ A trespasser who was not authorized to enter the stairway? 22 If your answer is that he was a trespasser, do not answer any further questions and return a verdict in favor of the defendants. 23 When asked if he had any objections to this form, Drohan's counsel stated: Yes. The only question we had was the separation of the status as to whether or not the Officer was a trespasser being separated from the other issues in the case.... We would object to the separation of question number one from other general issues in the case. Because Drohan did not object to the status question being decided by the jury or to the wording of the question, we review the special interrogatory for plain error only. See Phav v. Trueblood, Inc., 915 F.2d 764, 769 (1st Cir.1990) (Rule 51 applies to special interrogatories as well as to verbal instructions). As there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision, any error in having the jury, rather than the court, decide the trespasser issue is hardly a miscarriage of justice or a violation of the integrity of the judicial process. Wilson, 150 F.3d at 6-7. We therefore decline to find plain error. 7