Opinion ID: 2531907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special-Verdict Form

Text: CSX also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to submit its special-verdict form to the jury. CSX contends that this was a complicated trial that lasted nine days, with multiple claims, extensive expert testimony, and multiple causes of injury and that a special-verdict form was necessary to adequately address the issues presented. The FELA does not require the use of a special-verdict form. Bissett v. Burlington Northern R.R., 969 F.2d 727 (8th Cir.1992). Whether to direct the jury to return a general verdict or special verdicts is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bissett, supra ; Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption of Rule 49, Ala. R. Civ. P.; see also Dardess v. SouthTrust Bank of Quad Cities, 555 So.2d 746 (Ala.1989). The special-verdict form submitted by CSX would have permitted the jury to make individual findings on both the FELA negligence claim and the FELA strict-liability claim, which alleged a violation of the LIA. The special-verdict form would have also permitted the jury to apportion percentages of fault between CSX's violation of the LIA, CSX's negligence, Miller's contributory negligence, and other non-work-related matters such as age and/or history of smoking. Specifically, question 8 of the special-verdict form asked the jury the following: What percentage of Plaintiff's condition was caused by the following: a. Percentage due to Defendant's violation of Locomotive Inspection Act pertaining to securely mounted and braced cab seats: ______% b. Percentage due to Defendant's negligence: ______% c. Percentage due to Plaintiff's negligence: ______% d. Percentage due to non-work related matters, including age and/or smoking: ______% Question 9 of the special-verdict form asked the jury the following question: What total amount do you find, without any reduction for any negligence that you may find on Plaintiff's part or due to non-work related matters including age and/or smoking, will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff for his alleged neck injury? In Norfolk Southern Ry. v. Bradley, 772 So.2d 1147 (Ala.2000), this Court considered a similar issue. In Bradley, the plaintiff sued Norfolk under the FELA seeking to recover damages for injuries he sustained while working as a yard engineer. Norfolk submitted a special-verdict form that would have permitted the jury to apportion damages between the plaintiff's on-the-job accident and certain preexisting non-work-related illnesses that independently would have caused the plaintiff to miss work. Norfolk's special-verdict form included, among others, the following questions: Question 6 asks: `What amount do you find, without any reduction for any negligence which you may find on the Plaintiff's part, will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for the injury he received?' Question 7 asks: `What percentage of the damages determined in Question 6 above is attributable to a pre-existing condition or to the Plaintiff's previous or subsequent accidents?' Bradley, 772 So.2d at 1152. The trial court refused to submit Norfolk's special-verdict form to the jury. Norfolk argued on appeal that a special-verdict form was required because the case was complex. In affirming the trial court's refusal to submit the special-verdict form to the jury, this Court stated: The trial court properly refused Norfolk Southern's proposed verdict form, because it was confusing and misleading. Question 6 specifically asks the jury to assess the amount of damages that would fairly and adequately compensate Bradley for his injury. Then Question 7 asks the jury to assess a percentage of the amount of damages from Question 6 that are attributable to `a pre-existing condition or to the Plaintiff's previous or subsequent accidents.' The questions are inconsistent and present an incorrect basis for determining damages. The questions would have asked the jury to determine the amount of damages Bradley was entitled to based on the on-the-job accident and then to assign a percentage of those damages as being attributable to another accident or medical condition. In addition, the trial court specifically charged the jury that Bradley could not recover for any other accident or illness that was not directly the result of the accident in question.... `....' The jury was properly instructed that it could compensate Bradley only for injuries resulting from the train accident. The trial court did not err in refusing Norfolk Southern's proposed verdict form. Bradley, 772 So.2d at 1152. Like questions 6 and 7 in Bradley, questions 8 and 9 in this case ask the jury to assign a percentage of Miller's damages as attributable to non-work-related issues such as age and history of smoking and then asks the jury to compensate Miller for the amount of damages he is entitled for his neck injury without any reduction for non-work-related matters such as his age and history of smoking. We further note that like the jury in Bradley, the jury in this case was properly instructed by the trial court that Miller could not be compensated for any injury not proximately caused by CSX's negligence. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court exceeded its discretion in refusing to submit CSX's special-verdict form to the jury.