Opinion ID: 537029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the general verdict form

Text: 7 Finally, Defendants object to the form of the verdict submitted to the jury. They argue that it was error to use a general verdict form, rather than a special verdict in the form of interrogatories. However, the form of jury verdict is within the discretion of the trial judge, and is not ordinarily reviewable. Lummus Industries, Inc., v. D.M & E. Corp., 862 F.2d 267 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 49 Commentaries (It appears that the privilege of calling for a special verdict is not a right to be demanded by the parties but is rather a matter to be determined by judicial discretion.) and Flanigan v. Burlington Northern Inc., 632 F.2d 880 (8th Cir.1980) cert. denied, 450 U.S. 921, 101 S.Ct. 1370, 67 L.Ed.2d 349 (1981) (The decision whether to use a general verdict accompanied by special interrogatories ... is similarly committed to the unreviewable discretion of the trial judge.), quoting 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil Sec. 2511, at 522 (1971). 8 The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The award of punitive damages supports the conclusion that the jury found a species of fraud. In Adkins v. Ford Motor Company, 446 F.2d 1105, 1108 (6th Cir.1971), this Court held: 9 Tennessee adheres to the rule that where more than one theory of recovery is submitted to the jury, and there is evidence to support one or more, but not all, of the theories, a general verdict should be construed to be attributable to the theory or theories supported by sufficient evidence and submitted free from error. [Citations omitted]. 10 The trial judge acted within his discretion by submitting the case to the jury through a general verdict form. 11 The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.