Court Opinion

ID: 9634366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:09:29.280883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:01.056845
License: Public Domain

Larrow, J.,
concurring in result. I am unable to perceive any inconsistency whatever between the several answers to interrogatories as returned by the jury. The confusion arises from the questions themselves, which do not suitably reflect assumption of risk as a bar to liability based upon an express warranty, although the written charge, furnished to them, apparently did so.
In my view, the case falls within the second classification of Y.R.C.P. 49, i.e., answers consistent with each other but with one or more inconsistent with the general verdict. This leaves open the alternative of entering a defendant’s judgment, not available where the answers are inconsistent with each other and with the verdict, the third classification. The arguments for such a solution are indeed cogent, and only the general aura of confusion engendered by the faulty nature of the interrogatories leads me to concur in the result reached by the majority. The questions propounded did not accurately reflect the charge, and the discrepant result is the fruit of this inaccuracy. I am persuaded, albeit with some reservations, that substantial justice is better served by a new trial. V.R.C.P. 1.
I am, however, ill at ease about the failure to treat claims of error raised and briefed which are liable to recur upon retrial.