Opinion ID: 2576177
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Special Verdict Form Appropriately Paraphrased the Jury Instructions.

Text: Cummins argues that the special verdict form invited the jury to stray from the elements of apparent agency. In essence, Cummins argues that, even though Instruction No. 38 correctly required the jury to find both a manifestation by Cummins and reasonable reliance on that manifestation by Nelson, the special verdict form only asked the jury whether Nelson had reason to believe that P & R was acting for Cummins. Alaska Civil Rule 49(b) allows the superior court to submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer . . . . We treat a special verdict form as a type of jury instruction subject to the same standard of review applicable to claims of instructional error. [28] To be reversibly erroneous, an instruction must contain an erroneous statement of the law and the error must be prejudicial. [29] Instruction No. 38 read in part: The law makes Cummins Northwest or Cummins Engine responsible for the acts of Piston and Rudder if you decide it is more likely than not true that: (1) Cummins Northwest or Cummins Engine did or said something that caused the plaintiff reasonably to believe that Piston and Rudder was authorized to act on behalf of Cummins Northwest or Cummins Engine; and (2) The plaintiff reasonably relied on this belief. Question No. 10(a) of the special verdict form asked: Did the plaintiffs have reason to believe that Piston and Rudder was an agent of Cummins Northwest? Question No. 10(b) asked: Did the plaintiffs have reason to believe that Piston and Rudder was an agent of Cummins Engine? A special verdict form question need not lay out all of the elements in a cause of action. [30] A special verdict form question is intended to be simple and concise, not repetitive or misleading. [31] Indeed, if the special verdict form could not paraphrase the instructions to some extent, the special verdict form would be as long as the relevant instructions themselves, and would have to repeat them verbatim. We assume that a jury follows the trial court's instructions, [32] and we consider this special verdict form in the context in which it was given. [33] Instruction No. 38 required the jury to find both a manifestation by Cummins and reasonable reliance on that manifestation by Nelson. It instructed the jury that if both requirements were not fulfilled, Cummins was not responsible for the actions of P & R. [34] Questions No. 10(a) and 10(b) appropriately paraphrased the jury instruction and were therefore not erroneous.