Opinion ID: 1656301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Form of the Verdict

Text: Cochran next contends that the trial court committed reversible error by presenting a verdict form that, he says, precluded the jury from assessing damages based on each separate cause of action. This Court must first determine whether Cochran properly preserved this issue for our review. The trial court in this case presented the jury with three alternative verdict forms. The first verdict form allowed the jury to find in favor of the Wards and against A-1 Metals and to assess damages. The second verdict form allowed the jury to find in favor of Cochran and against the Wards on the Wards' fraud claims. The third verdict form, with which Cochran finds fault, allowed the jury to find in favor of the Wards and against both A-1 and Cochran and to assess damages based on the Wards' fraud claims. Cochran argues that the third verdict form also allowed the jury to assess damages against him based on the Wards' separate claim against A-1 alleging wantonness. The argument is without merit. The verdict form specifically states that the damages award is based on a finding of fraud, not wantonness: [W]e the jury find ... in favor of the [Wards] and against the defendants A-1 Metals and [Cochran] and assess [the Wards] damages at ___, that is if you find fraud, either innocentfraud by misrepresentation or innocent misrepresentation on the part of [Cochran] because [Cochran] is not charged with wantonness. Only A-1 is charged with wantonness. After the trial court presented the jury with this verdict form, the jury was excused and the following transpired: [THE COURT]: What says the defendant? [Counsel for Cochran]: Other than what I had just [THE COURT]: You can make your record later. [Counsel for Cochran]: Yes, sir. Other than this scant reply, Cochran made no specific objection to the use of this third verdict form, nor did he state any grounds for any objection. See Rule 51, Ala. R. Civ. P. (in order to preserve error, a party must state the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection). [I]f an objection to a verdict form is specific enough to indicate why the party is objecting, then the issue whether the verdict form was proper is preserved for review. CP & B Enters., Inc. v. Mellert, 762 So.2d 356, 362 (Ala.2000). Cochran's objection was not specific enough to indicate the basis for his objection; accordingly, we hold that Cochran failed to properly object to the use of verdict form. Id. We further note that, during deliberations, the jury foreperson forwarded a note to the trial judge regarding the allocation of the damages award. The trial judge opened the note and read it to the attorneys. The note specifically inquired as to whether the jury should itemize the damages or assess one total amount. The trial judge stated to the attorneys that [m]y answer to their question will be written this way. Just one total amountnothing to itemize, period, and my initials. (Emphasis added.) The trial judge then asked, What says the defendant? to which counsel for Cochran stated, No objection. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Wards and against A-1 and Cochran, and assessed damages at $350,000. The trial court entered a judgment based on the verdict. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that any argument concerning the use of the verdict form, to which Cochran failed to object, is not preserved for our review. Mellert, supra.