Opinion ID: 1831975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness-of-Objection Issue

Text: We must first decide whether Barnes timely raised his inconsistent-verdicts argument in his motion for new trial. [1] We find that the cases of Lewis v. Moss, 347 So.2d 91 (Ala.1977), and A.L. Williams & Assocs., Inc. v. Williams, 517 So.2d 596 (Ala.1987), are dispositive of this issue, and we hold that Barnes's inconsistent-verdicts argument was timely raised in the motion for new trial. See also Stinson v. Acme Propane Gas Co., 391 So.2d 659 (Ala.1980). In Lewis, where the jury returned a verdict for the wife but not the husband in a consolidated negligence action, this Court stated: It is a verdict correct as to form but adverse as to substance to which this appeal is directed. While the trial court may direct appropriate efforts toward correcting inconsistent verdicts if called to [its] attention before the jury is discharged, we find no prohibition against raising the issue of inconsistent verdicts for the first time on motion for new trial. 347 So.2d at 93 (emphasis in original). Additionally, in Williams, where a jury returned a plaintiff's verdict on the wife's loss of consortium claim but not on the husband's interference-with-business-relations claim, this Court, relying on Lewis, stated that, after the discharge of the jury, objection to the verdict in a post-judgment motion for new trial was not filed too late. [2] In this case, neither party objected to the verdict forms submitted to the jury. Instead, Barnes objected to the jury's verdicts because of the alleged inconsistency. This objection was not raised until Barnes made his motion for new trial. Because Barnes's objection was directed to the actual verdicts rendered by the jury and not to the verdict forms submitted to the jury, we hold that Barnes's inconsistent-verdicts argument was timely raised in the motion for new trial and that that argument was not waived.