Court Opinion

ID: 9667327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:42:42.341648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:37.091916
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). As I understand the majority opinion, if the jury brings in an inconsistent verdict, the trial court should reinstruct the jury and give the jury the opportunity to reconsider its action. Nevertheless, the majority opinion apparently empowers the trial court, in the event of an inconsistent verdict, to enter judgment without reinstructing the jury or giving it an opportunity to reconsider its action if the appropriate party waives any claims arising out of the inconsistent verdict {swpra, pp. 99-101) or the trial court, pursuant to sec. 805.14(5) (d), Stats. 1979-80, reserved a ruling on a motion for directed verdict or dismissal prior to submission of the verdict to a jury (supra, pp. 100, 101). If after reinstruction the jury brings in an inconsistent verdict, the majority holds that there must be a new trial unless the appropriate party waives any claims arising out of the inconsistent verdict (supra, pp. 99-101), or the trial court, pursuant to sec. 805.14(5) (d), Stats. 1979-80, reserved a ruling on a motion for directed verdict or dismissal made prior to the initial submission of the verdict to a jury (supra, pp. 100,101).
Under the majority opinion, if after reinstruction the jury brings in an inconsistent verdict and there is no waiver of claims and there has been no reservation of a ruling under sec. 805.14(5) (d) and a party, pursuant *116to sec. 805.14(5) (c), (e), Stats. 1979-80, “moves the court to change an answer in the verdict on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the answer,” then the trial court cannot change the answer but must grant a new trial. I disagree with this aspect of the opinion. Since sec. 805.14(5) (c), (e) and sec. 805.14(5) (d) are so similar,* in the event of an inconsistent verdict after reinstruction, I would permit the trial court to exercise its power to change an answer pursuant to sec. 805.14(5) (c), (e) and (6).

 “The Wisconsin court has recommended that a trial court reserve its ruling on a motion for directed verdict until after the jury has returned its verdict in order to eliminate the necessity of granting a new trial. Accordingly, subsection (5) (d) expressly provides for a renewal of the motion after verdict.
“Subsection (5)(e) abolishes the necessity of preliminary motions as prerequisites for the making of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change answer. . . . The state rule recognizes that the practice of taking pre-submission motions under advisement pending the return of the verdict is so common in modern litigation that the preliminary motions frequently serve no purpose other than laying the formal basis for the motions to be made after verdict.” Graczyk, The New Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure, Chapters 805-807, 59 Marq. L. Rev. 671, 706, 707 (1976) (footnotes omitted ).