Court Opinion

ID: 9559403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:28:37.439049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:53.645472
License: Public Domain

MoALLISTER, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but disagree with its conclusion concerning the two verdicts returned by the jury. In this ease plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in which he alleged that he had incurred “medical and hospital expenses in the sum of $-,” and also alleged that he had sustained loss of wages. The court in its instructions advised the jury that plaintiff alleged in his second amended complaint' that he had incurred medical and *35hospital expenses in the sum of $517.85. The court also said:
“* * * I have written that sum in, based upon the testimony received here, and initialed it. And there is an additional statement, ‘and will continue to incur the same in the future.’ That relates to the medical and hospital expenses. Because there was no direct testimony on that, I have withdrawn that and marked it so on the pleadings. And he alleges that as a result of the injuries, he lost two days of work in the value of $20.00. And then comes the prayer.”
The jury was instructed that if it found that plain- . tiff was entitled to general damages it should then determine the amount of special damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff. Unfortunately the jury was furnished a form of verdict which did not provide for the segregation of the general and special damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $537.85, which was the exact total of the two sums of $517.85 and $20.00, both written in the complaint by the court.
The plaintiff objected to the verdict on the ground that the jury had found only special damages without any award for general damages. The objection was sustained by the trial judge, who refused to receive the verdict and gave the jury further instructions concerning the verdict. The jury then returned and after further deliberation returned a verdict awarding plaintiff $500 general damages. The plaintiff objected to the second verdict, but the objection was overruled, the verdict received, and judgment entered thereon.
In my opinion the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to receive the first verdict, which obviously was an award of the special damages claimed *36without any supporting award of general damages. This violation of his instructions was particularly obvious to the trial judge, who had penciled on the complaint the amount of special damages supported by any evidence and had called the figures to the attention of the jury. The trial court followed the course repeatedly recommended by this court when it resubmitted the case to the jury after seasonable objection was made. In the recent case of Mullins v. Rowe, 222 Or 519, 353 P2d 861 (1960) we said, at 222 Or 524:
“If the plaintiff in the instant case thought the jury meant ‘special damages’ when it said ‘general damages’, the matter could have been clarified on the spot. A party is entitled to his day in court, and to one jury trial. In Fischer v. Howard, 201 Or 426, 271 P2d 1059, 49 ALR2d 1301, this court reviewed most of the earlier Oregon decisions, and pointed out the following:
“(1) The time to object to a defective verdict, if it is defective, is while the jury is still on hand so that the trial court can resubmit the matter with proper instructions.
“(2) An objection not taken when the verdict is returned into court is waived.
“ (3) The only correct procedure to follow is to resubmit the matter to the same jury.”
It seems strange that we are now criticizing the trial court for following a course which we have oft recommended.
The second verdict for general damages was a proper verdict and the trial court did not err in receiving it and entering judgment thereon.
I concur in the result.