Court Opinion

ID: 9458974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:06:51.23208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:58.050539
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur fully in the opinion and the decision. I merely add this concurrence to point out to District Courts the danger of entering the general verdict for the indicated prevailing party following the receipt of the jury’s answers to special interrogatories. The special interrogatories and answers thereto under F.R.Civ.P. 49 (a) constitutes the verdict and affords an almost foolproof mechanism for whatever action is thereafter needed by the trial Judge in passing on post-verdict motions and the appellate court in any appeal. The moment a general verdict is required to be entered, it then comes under F.R.Civ.P. 49(b) and the difference is a good deal more than the difference between (a) and (b). For F.R.Civ.P. 49(b) is a codification of an ancient common law practice seldom followed, of a general charge, a general verdict and special interrogatories. This sets in train all of the accident complications in which any possible inconsistency between the general verdict and an answer to a single question compels a new trial and automatically deprives the trial court of the flexible resources that are afforded to him under 49(a) in which, for example, the court itself may make the missing findings, if any, or is presumed to have made whatever findings are necessary to support the judgment that he enters. See Brown, Federal Special Verdicts: The Doubt Eliminator 1967, 5 Cir., 44 F.R.D. 338.