Opinion ID: 894850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presumptions Concerning a Split Verdict

Text: As we said in City of Keller v. Wilson , when there are conflicts in testimony we must presume jurors decided all of them in favor of the verdict if reasonable human beings could do so. [4] But we also noted that evidence may support one part of a verdict but not another. [5] Here, one version (that Axelrad reported where his pain began) supports the verdict against Dr. Jackson, while the other version (that he did not) supports the verdict against Axelrad. Reasonable jurors could not have believed both  Axelrad either did or did not report where his pain began. But because either answer would support part of the verdict, which one must we presume jurors believed? The answer turns on the purpose of the presumption. It is not a prediction about what jurors actually did, as they often do not decide all conflicts one way. Here, for example, each party asserted several reasons why the other was negligent, so jurors did not have to agree on any one reason so long as they agreed on the result. [6] Instead, the presumption serves to protect jury verdicts from second-guessing on appeal. As a result, it operates in favor of any jury finding a litigant asks an appellate court to set aside. Here, the court of appeals set aside only one jury finding  that Axelrad was negligent. To ensure that the appellate court did not substitute its own judgment for that of the jury, we must presume the jury decided all conflicts in favor of this finding. [7] There are some cases in which this general rule will not apply. Courts cannot presume findings in favor of one part of a verdict if doing so creates an irreconcilable conflict with another. [8] But that is not the case here, as there was evidence Dr. Jackson was negligent even if Axelrad failed to report all his symptoms. Accordingly, we must presume jurors found Axelrad did not report where his abdominal pain began.