Opinion ID: 1887704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing the interrogatory form of the verdict which failed to set out every element of the action before the jury.

Text: ¶ 44. Pickering argues that the special verdict form failed to set out separately the issues of fact as raised by the parties. Further, Pickering argues that the special verdict form failed to allow the jury to determine whether the actions of Pickering, in fact, constituted a misuse of the tractor under the circumstances. Pickering contends that it included negligence elements which were not at issue in this action. Pickering relies on the case of Jones v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694 So.2d 1249 (Miss.1997), wherein the plaintiff objected to the form of the special verdict instruction submitted and this Court held that the failure to include the issues of fact as requested by the Plaintiff was reversible error. Id. at 1251. Therefore, Pickering argues, the special verdict form should not have been given as such, but should have been modified to separately set out every issue of fact, and to include any reference to the negligence of Pickering. ¶ 45. IMT contends that the trial court submitted the case to the jury based on the interrogatories. With the exception of the question regarding Pickering's comparative negligence, Pickering's attorney made no objections at trial or in this portion of his appeal brief to the elements set forth in these interrogatories or to any lack of any element that Pickering claims should have been set forth in the jury interrogatories. ¶ 46. The trial court allowed the following form of the verdict: 1.(a) Was the IMT tractor defective, and did it reach Pat Pickering without substantial change? (b) Was the act of unsticking the clutch with the tractor running and in gear a foreseeable misuse of the tractor? (If your answer to either is no go no further.) 2. Was the condition of the tractor a direct and proximate cause of any injuries received by the Plaintiff? (If your answer is no go no further.) 3. Was the Plaintiff negligent in unsticking the clutch on the tractor? 4. If so, was the Plaintiffs negligence a direct and proximate cause of any injuries he received? 5. If so, was the Plaintiffs negligence, if any, in unsticking the clutch reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer of the tractor? 6. What do you find the Plaintiffs total damages, unreduced by any percentage of fault, if any, to be as a result of the injuries received? 7. What, if any, was the percentage which the condition of the tractor contributed to the injuries received by the Plaintiff? 8. What was the percentage which any negligence of the Plaintiff contributed to his injuries? (The percentages in 7 and 8 must total 100%.) ¶ 47. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-157 (1972), states, No special form of the verdict is required, and where there has been a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law in rendering a verdict, a judgment shall not be arrested or reversed for mere want of form therein. This Court in Mississippi Valley Gas Co., v. Estate of Walker, 725 So.2d 139 (Miss.), set forth the applicable test for determining whether a verdict is sufficient as follows: [T]he basic test with reference to whether or not a verdict is sufficient as to form is whether or not it is an intelligent answer to the issues submitted to the jury and expressed so that the intent of the jury can be understood by the court. This well-established rule of law has long been recognized by this Court . . . Mississippi Valley Gas Co., v. Estate of Walker, 725 So.2d 139 (Miss.1998) (quoting Harrison v. Smith, 379 So.2d 517, 519 (Miss.1980)). ¶ 48. Rule 49(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides: The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring written findings thereon as it deems appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. ¶ 49. In accordance with relevant principles of law regarding the special form of the verdict, the form of the verdict in this case was sufficient. The trial court did not err in allowing the interrogatory form of the verdict because the form accurately set out the elements of the action.