Opinion ID: 1628456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of special verdict.

Text: On appeal, Ranta asserts that his counsel requested separate jury findings on each of the following five acts of negligence he contends he was charged with in the Hills' amended complaint and the cross-claim of Okay: (1) Representation of both parties to the Okay-Romans transaction without adequate disclosure of the potential conflicts of interest in such an arrangement; (2) Failure to prepare written documentation of the Okay-Romans agreement; (3) Failure to adequately insulate Okay from the claims of Romans' creditors; (4) Failure to adequately investigate the Hills' financial background; (5) Approval of the execution of the financial profiles. Ranta contends that the trial court improperly refused to submit to the jury specifically requested interrogatories concerning these allegations. The special verdict form proposed by Ranta's counsel to the trial court contained two separate interrogatories regarding negligence. One asked whether Ranta was negligent in failing to obtain written consent to his dual representation from his clients. The other asked whether he was negligent in failing to document the transaction between the parties. The trial court refused these requests, and instead presented to the jury, with appropriate instructions, one general interrogatory regarding Ranta's negligence and two questions on causationone regarding the Hills' damages and the other regarding Okay's. Pursuant to Rule 49.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial judge may decide to submit a special verdict to a jury, rather than a general verdict. Under prior Minnesota practice, the decision as to which form of verdict to use was controlled by the nature of the action, and a special verdict was available only in an action for the recovery of money and then only if the jury, in its discretion, decided to render such a verdict. Rule 49.01 liberalized that former practice by leaving it to the discretion of the trial court whether to submit the case on a special verdict or not. Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co., 247 Minn. 32, 76 N.W.2d 643 (1956). Not only does the trial court have the discretion to decide whether or not to use a special verdict, but it is possessed of broad discretion as to what form that special verdict is to take. Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 136, 189 N.W.2d 493, 498 (1971), citing McDonnell v. Timmerman, 269 F.2d 54 (8 Cir. 1959); 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann., p. 289. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in McDonnell v. Timmerman, 269 F.2d 54, 58, observed that the formulation of the verdict by the court is a proper exercise of that discretion if the questions propounded fairly and adequately cover all of the issues of fact raised by the pleadings and proof. Such questions as are raised by the pleadings and evidence which are important to the judgment to be rendered must be submitted to the jury. Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co., 247 Minn. 32, 47, 76 N.W.2d 643, 653. The rationale for this requirement that the special verdict encompass all questions of material fact is to ensure the parties their constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. The questions submitted to the jury need not be questions of pure fact, but, in the discretion of the trial court, may be in the form of ultimate fact questions. See, Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 136, 189 N.W.2d 493, 498, and cases cited therein. While in certain cases it may be more desirable to have the jury determine evidentiary rather than ultimate facts, Thielbar v. Juenke, supra , in negligence cases the jury may draw the inference from those facts as to whether or not the applicable standard of care has been breached. Cooper v. Friesen, 296 Minn. 160, 207 N.W.2d 742 (1973); Stenzel v. Bach, 295 Minn. 257, 203 N.W.2d 819 (1973). See, generally, 13B Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7048. The issues of material fact which were raised by the pleadings and evidence adduced at trial appear to be these: (1) What was the nature of the business transaction between the Hills and Okay? (2) Was Ranta negligent in his representation of the Hills, and if so, what damages resulted from that negligence? (3) Was Ranta negligent in his representation of Okay, and if so, what damages resulted from that negligence? As to the first issue, the court and the parties were in agreement as to that portion of the special verdict which covered the nature of the transaction itself. All of the suggested special verdict forms were in substantial harmony with that portion of the verdict the court finally submitted dealing with this issue, and no objections to this portion of the verdict are found in the record. The issue is raised on appeal only insofar as the parties challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's findings. The issue of Ranta's negligence with respect to the Hills was not that he represented both them and Okay and not that he failed to document their transaction, but rather that, as his clients, he failed to protect their interests. Like failure to yield the right of way, excessive speed, and improper lookout in an ordinary automobile negligence case, Ranta's dual representation and his failure to document the transaction were merely evidentiary facts which provided a basis for the jury's finding of negligence. As such, the trial court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the individual questions of whether Ranta was negligent because of his dual representation and his failure to reduce the agreement to writing. The same analysis applies to the claim that Ranta negligently failed to protect the interests of Okay. However, in this regard, there is the additional issue of the disputed financial profiles. On appeal, Ranta's counsel argues that, despite the jury's finding that Ranta approved the execution and dissemination of the profiles, there was no finding by the jury that this constituted negligence and that the absence of such a specific finding is reversible error. It is evident that Ranta's failure to protect Okay's interests from the claims of Romans' creditors subsumes his approval of the financial profiles. Thus, in determining whether or not Ranta was negligent in his representation of Okay, the jury considered the evidentiary facts of his dual relationship, his failure to document the transaction, and his approval of the financial profiles, and drew the conclusion of ultimate fact that Ranta's conduct was negligent. As the discussion above shows, there was sufficient evidence presented on all of these individual fact issues to enable the jury to make this determination. The trial court, in its scheme of presentation of the case to the jury, asked the jury whether Ranta was negligent, and if so, whether that negligence caused Okay damages in the form of expenses in defending the lawsuits brought by Romans' creditors. If the answer to both questions was yes, then the other damages claimed by Okay from Ranta, namely indemnification for the actual amounts claimed by the creditors of Romans', logically follow. For these reasons we feel that a separate finding by the jury that Ranta was negligent in approving the financial profiles was not necessary. Additionally, the record reveals that the trial court was never requested to have the jury make a specific finding as to the character of Ranta's conduct in approving the financial profiles. The interrogatory submitted by the court regarding this act was substantially the same as that requested by Ranta. It must be kept in mind that the facts of Ranta's dual representation and his failure to document the transaction were not contested, and it was not necessary for the jury, in making the ultimate determination of negligence, to find these evidentiary facts. Whether or not Ranta approved the financial profiles was, on the other hand, disputed. By having the jury indicate its finding on this point, the court was provided with verification of the jury's determination of this evidentiary fact. We believe that it might well have been preferable to ask the jury separate questions concerning Ranta's negligence with respect to the Hills and with respect to Okay. Conceivably the jury could have found that Ranta was negligent in his representation of one party but not of the other. However, this difficulty is overcome by the separate questions relating to damages suffered by each party because of Ranta's negligence. It does not appear that the jury was confused by the formulation of the interrogatories by the trial court, and their determination of the material issues can readily be ascertained from the answers made to those interrogatories. Similarly, although it might have been appropriate for the trial court to present to the jury an interrogatory regarding the comparative negligence, if any, of the other parties, such an interrogatory is not required under Minn.St. 604.01, subd. 1, in the absence of a demand from one of the litigants. The record fails to reveal such a demand. The trial court fully and adequately covered the material facts of negligence and causation without itemizing the acts of negligence alleged. We cannot substitute our discretion for that of the trial court. Finally, Ranta argues that the trial court improperly failed to distinguish, or have the jury distinguish, between his conduct as an attorney and his conduct as a business advisor. The record fails to support Ranta's allegation that he had acted in the capacity of a business advisor. First, it appears that Ranta's culpable conduct was rendered entirely in a legal context. The claims made against him are not for bad business judgment but rather for legal malfeasance, specifically his failure to properly document the transaction and to properly advise as to the legal effects of certain other documents. Second, there is nothing in the record to suggest that counsel for Ranta ever requested that such a distinction be drawn, either by the jury or by the court. The jury very clearly was instructed by the court as to the proper standard by which an attorney's conduct must be judged, and it had only that standard and not some business judgment rule to apply. We find this argument to be without substantial merit.