Opinion ID: 475761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Form of Special Issues

Text: 17 Defendant Budd contends that the district court abused its discretion in the form of the special issues submitted to the jury regarding Bowers' alleged contributory negligence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 49. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) gives a trial judge the discretionary authority to use special verdicts in submitting a case to the jury. The trial court also has discretion over the nature, form, and scope of the issues submitted to the jury. This discretion is reviewable only for abuse. Bryan v. Cargill, Inc., 723 F.2d 1202, 1204 (5th Cir.1984) (citing Loffland Brothers Co. v. Roberts, 386 F.2d 540, 546 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1040, 88 S.Ct. 778, 19 L.Ed.2d 830 (1968)). This Court has summarized the standards applied in exercising its appellate review of the district court's formulation of the special issues: 18 [W]e have emphasized several factors in determining the adequacy of forms of special interrogatories: (i) whether, when read as a whole and in conjunction with the general charge the interrogatories adequately presented the contested issues to the jury, (ii) whether the submission of the issues to the jury was fair, and (iii) whether the ultimate questions of fact were clearly submitted to the jury. 19 Dreiling v. General Electric Co., 511 F.2d 768, 774 (5th Cir.1975) (citations omitted). 20 This Court has also stated that, while the judge must submit all material issues raised by the pleadings and evidence, the standard for review is not academic perfection. Miley v. Oppenheimer & Co., 637 F.2d 318, 332 (5th Cir.1981). The Court has explained: 21 There is no doubt that a judge must clearly and properly instruct the jury with regard to the resolution of key issues in a given case. However, there is no basis for [appellant's] apparent assumption that because an issue is important to the outcome of a case, the jury must be instructed to supply a specific answer informing the court how they resolved that one issue. No party is entitled to a special verdict on each of the multi-faceted, multitudinous issues essential to the resolution of a given case. 22 Miley, 637 F.2d at 334. See also Bryan, 723 F.2d at 1204. 23 In the instant case, Special Issue No. 17 asked the jury: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question Robert J. Bowers failed to keep a proper lookout for his own safety? The jury answered yes, and then was instructed to proceed to the next question, Special Issue No. 18: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such conduct was negligence? The jury answered no. The district court denied Defendant Question 19, which asked the jury whether plaintiff Robert J. Bowers failed to heed the warnings given to him. 24 Viewed within the perimeters of appellate review outlined above, it cannot be said that the district court's denial of the requested question was an abuse of discretion. When read in conjunction with the trial judge's instructions, the special interrogatories as given fairly submitted to the jury the contested issues and defendant Budd's defense of contributory negligence. We see no reversible error in the trial court's action.