Opinion ID: 2616325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: verdict of the jury

Text: We the jury, upon our oath, find as follows: 1. PLAINTIFF: Negligence Contributing to 46% Cause the Occurrence (Determine from 0% to 100%). 2. DEFENDANT: Negligence Contributing to 54% Cause the Occurrence (Determine from 0% to 100%). TOTAL: Percentages of 1 and 2 Must Total Either 0% or 100%. 100% Answer the following only if the percentage of plaintiff negligence is of a lesser percentage than the negligence of the defendant. 3. We find the total amount of damages proved by the evidence sustained by the plaintiff disregarding the percentages of negligence of the plaintiff and defendant is the sum of $7,500.00. Defendant submits this instruction and verdict form were improper because instruction not only allowed the jury to establish the negligence of the parties, but transformed the trier of fact into a judge, by informing it as to the operation of the statute and the effect of its findings. Defendant cites Avery v. Wadlington, 186 Colo. 158, 526 P.2d 295 (1974) and the comparative negligence statutes of Colorado and Wisconsin as authority for his allegation. [8] Interpretation of Oklahoma's comparative negligence statutes requires guarded treatment in the face of our constitutional and statutory provisions limiting the type of verdict used in Oklahoma to a general verdict. [9] Apparently no other state has a constitutional provision of the same or similar effect. [10] Therefore construction of comparative negligence statutes in jurisdictions allowing special verdicts, such as Colorado, Wisconsin and Arkansas must be viewed with a critical eye. It has been said the special verdict is the very cornerstone of the comparative negligence concept, and the jury does not, and should not, know the legal effect and result of its answers to the interrogatories in the special verdict. [11] The jury under a special verdict is limited to the findings of specified facts and should not know the legal effect of its answers. Defendant is correct that in those states using a special verdict the court may create error by informing the jury of the effect of its answers. [12] However, in Oklahoma, because our verdict must be general, this rule of law has no application. The jury not only must know the legal effect of its findings, but must determine the ultimate result, limited only by the special findings as to each parties degree of negligence. Such special findings are constitutionally and statutorily permitted. Under a general verdict, a jury must know the effect of its answers or it is not a general verdict. Under Oklahoma law the instruction was not error. A trial court in Oklahoma however, must be cautious in presenting a verdict form to the jury to insure that it is a general verdict. If the verdict is not wholly determinative of the right of recovery the verdict would be special. [13] As long as a jury finds in favor of either plaintiff or defendant, special findings of fact will not deprive the verdict of its generality. [14] In Vaught v. Holland, 554 P.2d 1174 (Okl. 1976) we held no particular form of verdict is required and no exact wordage or language need be used in order for it to meet the constitutional requirement of a general verdict. In that case a verdict form almost identical to the one used here was held to be a general verdict. The jury finds percentage of liability and amount of damages; nothing is left for the judge to do except the arithmetic. The verdict form used here is acceptable in Oklahoma as a general verdict. AFFIRMED.