Opinion ID: 1664416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Court's Conduct the Equivalent of a Directed Verdict?

Text: McConnells contend that the jury had not completed its deliberations when the trial court elicited answers to the special verdicts, and therefore the court's actions had the effect of directing a verdict for defendant. They argue that the court's conduct forced the jury to render a verdict prematurely and thereby amounted to a judicial ruling as a matter of law in favor of Alcoa. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 216. The direction of a verdict in this case would have constituted error because the evidence generated factual questions for jury determination on the issues of strict liability, negligence and proximate cause. See Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(10). The actions taken by the court in response to the jury's handwritten questions cannot fairly be characterized as the directing of a verdict. Both the court and counsel for the parties recognized immediately upon receiving the questions that the jury had probably resolved the question of liability in favor of Alcoa, had completed its deliberations on liability issues, and was ready to proceed to the damage special verdicts but did not know if that was necessary. The following dialogue is instructive: THE COURT: The court upon considering such questions believes that the situation in the jury room with respect to answers which have been made to the Interrogatories is not altogether clear; however, it appears ... that the Jury has answered yes to only one of these Interrogatories.... If that be the case, there would be no finding of liability on the part of the Defendant in this case. It is the Court's suggestion that in response to the last two questions ... that the Court inquire of the Jury as to whether or not they have answered each of the first four Interrogatories, and, if so, indicate to the Court their answers to such Interrogatories. When such information is received from the Jury, the Court would then proceed further with respect to the direction as to further deliberations or answers to subsequent interrogatories. [McCONNELLS' ATTORNEY]: [T]here is only one thing we can do at this point, that is, directly ask them if they have answered the four questions, and see what the answers are because we are at an impasse. If one is going to be yes, it is over with, and it appears that is already what they have answered. But beginning at that point there is nothing else we can do. There is no sense having them in there on hold. We have got to find out what they did with the first four questions. [ALCOA'S ATTORNEY]: Defendants are in agreement with that procedure. (Emphasis added.) McConnells' attorney understood that if the jury had answered yes to only one of the first four special verdicts, Alcoa would be entitled to judgment in its favor. He initially concurred with the court's suggestion that if that were the case, no purpose would be served by requiring the jury to continue deliberating. The parties and the court recognized what the record clearly shows; the jury had already resolved the critical factual issues posed in the first four special verdicts pertaining to liability. Moreover, the court in its initial response to the jurors' questions preceded its inquiry about how they had answered special verdicts one through four by inquiring whether they had answered those special verdicts. The jury answered yes. We find no merit in McConnells' assertion that the court prematurely curtailed deliberations and improperly directed a verdict for Alcoa.