Opinion ID: 1965004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Judgment on Special Verdict

Text: Brianna claims that she was entitled to judgment on a special verdict pursuant to § 25-1314, which provides that [w]here the verdict is special, or where there has been a special finding on particular questions of fact, or where the court has ordered the case to be reserved, it shall order what judgment shall be entered. Brianna claims that the jury returned a special verdict on the issue of negligence, as contained in the following colloquy, which occurred while the trial court was questioning the jury foreperson on the reported deadlock: THE COURT: The bailiff advises me that in your opinion that the jury is deadlocked and is not going to be able to come to a decision in this case? [Foreperson]: Right. THE COURT: Is it your opinion that if the Court requested that you continue to deliberate as a jury, that there would be no further movement and a decision would not be entered? [Foreperson]: My opinion, yeah. .... THE COURT: ... I would like the record to reflect that the jurors have deliberated for in excess of two full days at this point. The Court's going to accept the opinions of the jurors and find that a mistrial in this matter shall be and should be and is declared at this time. ... as far as the jury's deliberations are concerned, I assume that you never got past the issue of liability as to whether or not the doctors were liable in this matter; is that correct? [Foreperson]: Right. THE COURT: Can you tell me without  well, first of all, can you tell me, have you actually conducted a vote on that issue? [Foreperson]: Yes, we have. THE COURT: And what was the last result numbers wise? [Foreperson]: 8/4. THE COURT: And as far as the concept of finding the doctors negligent and that they caused the injuries, did you get a vote as to that as to whether or not  first of all, may I ask, did you take a vote as for whether or not they found that there was negligence on the part of the doctors? [Foreperson]: Yes, we did. THE COURT: And what was the result of that? [Foreperson]: It was 12. THE COURT: All of you agree? [Foreperson]: All of us agreed that there was negligence. THE COURT: As far as the negligence being the cause of the birth, did you have a vote on that? [Foreperson]: Yes, we did. THE COURT: Or the prematurity of the birth, and how did that come out? [Foreperson]: It was 8 to 4. .... THE COURT: Can you tell me which? [Foreperson]: It wentsaid that he wasn'tthat it wasn't a proximate cause. THE COURT: And four believed? [Foreperson]: Four said it was the proximate cause. Brianna contends that this colloquy was a special verdict within the meaning of § 25-1314, entitling her to judgment on the issue of negligence. It is evident, however, that this colloquy satisfies none of the statutory prerequisites for a special finding or verdict. A special verdict is that by which the jury finds the facts only. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1122 (Reissue 1995). It must present the facts as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and they must be so presented that nothing remains to the court but to draw from them conclusions of law. Id. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1121 (Reissue 1995) states: In every action for the recovery of money only, or specific real property, the jury, in their discretion, may render a general or special verdict. In all other cases the court may direct the jury to find a special verdict, in writing, upon all or any of the issues and in all cases may instruct them, if they render a general verdict, to find upon particular questions of fact to be stated in writing, and may direct a written finding thereon. The special verdict or finding must be filed with the clerk and entered on the journal. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1123 (Reissue 1995) provides, in relevant part: The verdict shall be written, signed by the foreman, and read by the clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is their verdict. If any juror disagrees, the jury must be sent out again; but if no disagreement be expressed, and neither party requires the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete, and the jury discharged from the case. In the instant case, no written verdict was ever issued, nor was any inquiry made of the jury as a whole regarding the validity of such a verdict, nor was such a verdict filed with the clerk and entered on the journal of the court. See §§ 25-1121 and 25-1123. The verdict of the jury foreperson obviously left issues of fact unresolved, such that the trial court was presented with questions beyond conclusions of law. See § 25-1122. Consequently, it is evident that the colloquy between the foreperson and the trial court was not a special verdict, and Brianna was not entitled to any judgment pursuant to § 25-1314. Brianna's assignment of error is without merit.