Printable Format60-249. Special verdict; general verdict; written questions. (a) Special verdict. (1) In general. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact. The court may do so by:
(A) Submitting written questions susceptible of a categorical or other brief answer;
(B) submitting written forms of the special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or
(C) using any other method that the court considers appropriate.
(2) Instructions. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to make its findings on each submitted issue.
(3) Issues not submitted. A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the jury unless, before the jury retires, the party demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict.
(b) General verdict with answers to written questions. (1) In general. The court may on written request, submit to the jury forms for a general verdict, together with written questions on one or more issues of fact that the jury must decide. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to render a general verdict and answer the questions in writing, and must direct the jury to do both.
(2) Verdict and answers consistent. When the general verdict and the answers are consistent, the court must approve an appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers.
(3) Answers inconsistent with the verdict. When the answers are consistent with each other, but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may:
(A) Approve an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;
(B) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or
(C) order a new trial.
(4) Answers inconsistent with each other and the verdict. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is also inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment must not be entered; instead, the court must direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict, or must order a new trial.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-249; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 119; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 11; July 1.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 285–287; L. 1870, ch. 87, § 7; L. 1874, ch. 91, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 294; L. 1913, ch. 239, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-2918.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Advisory jury and trial by consent, see 60-239(c).
Judgment as a matter of law, motion for, see 60-250.
Instructions to jury, see 60-251.
Jury trial procedure, limited actions, see 61-3202.
Verdicts in criminal prosecutions, see 22-3421.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Special Questions" under former law (G.S. 1949, 60-2918) discussed, Edw. M. Boddington, 10 J.B.A.K. 149, 152 (1941); Wesley E. Brown, 16 J.B.A.K. 160, 169 (1947).
Old code (G.S. 1949, 60-2918) discussed in connection with judgment non obstante veredicto, Earl B. Shurtz and William A. Kelly, 8 K.L.R. 201, 217 (1959).
Paragraph (b) quoted in part and compared to prior law in 1963-65 survey of civil practice, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 184 (1965).
The legal effect of jury answers to special verdict questions under Kansas comparative negligence law, David E. Pierce, 16 W.L.J. 114, 115, 116, 117, 130, 133 (1976).
Effects of special verdicts in comparative negligence actions, 18 W.L.J. 606, 608 (1979).
"Verdicts," Mark A. Werner and Laurence Rose, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, 22, 23, 24, 25 (1982).
"Trial Techniques in Persuasion in a Medical Malpractice Case," Bradley J. Prochaska, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIX, No. 2, 8, 9 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2918 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Special findings of fact inconsistent with general verdict controls the judgment. Knape v. Livingston Oil Co., 193 Kan. 278, 282, 392 P.2d 842.
2. Submission of interrogatories to jury rests in discretion of trial judge. Thompson v. Norman, 198 Kan. 436, 445, 446, 424 P.2d 593.
3. Special questions must relate to substantial questions of disputed facts on which decision is necessary to a verdict (dissenting opinion). Harbaugh v. Darr, 200 Kan. 610, 617, 438 P.2d 74.
4. Subsection (b) applied; judicial discretion in submission pf interrogatories and supervision of form and nature. Hendrix v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 203 Kan. 140, 141, 158, 453 P.2d 486.
5. Failure to include issue of fact where special verdict required; right to jury trial waived where no demand. Bott v. Wendler, 203 Kan. 212, 216, 219, 220, 221, 453 P.2d 100.
6. Special findings in special verdict to be liberally construed; interpretation. Bott v. Wendler, 203 Kan. 212, 216, 219, 220, 221, 453 P.2d 100.
7. Judgment on special verdict rendered hereunder reversed on appeal; new trial ordered. Curby v. Ulysses Irrigation Pipe Co., Inc., 204 Kan. 456, 457, 464 P.2d 245.
8. Subsection (b) cited; no prejudicial error in court's instructions or explanation of special questions. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 578, 464 P.2d 166.
9. Cited; general verdict and jury's answers to interrogatories harmonious. Schneider v. Washington National Ins. Co., 204 Kan. 809, 812, 465 P.2d 932.
10. Subsection (b) discussed; absent showing that the trial court abused its power of discretion, it may refuse to give special questions even though they relate to issues of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence in the case. Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 78, 100, 101, 468 P.2d 269.
11. Subsection (a) discussed; the findings of the jury in their special verdict were inconsistent and new trial granted. Reed v. Chaffin, 205 Kan. 815, 819, 473 P.2d 102.
12. Subsection (a) cited; construction of conflicting or inconsistent special verdicts discussed. Rohr v. Henderson, 207 Kan. 123, 125, 130, 483 P.2d 1089.
13. Subsection (a) cited; special verdicts reinstated. Sexsmith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 209 Kan. 99, 100, 101, 495 P.2d 930.
14. No abuse of discretion in refusal to submit special questions involving malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Silva v. Lewis, 210 Kan. 348, 502 P.2d 831.
15. Special questions may not be submitted to jury in criminal prosecution. State v. Osburn, 211 Kan. 248, 255, 505 P.2d 742.
16. Objections to issues submitted under subsection (a) to jury must be raised in trial court or deemed waived. Hall v. High, 214 Kan. 489, 520 P.2d 1283.
17. Refusal to submit special questions not error; judicial discretion; negligence action. Hiatt v. Groce, 215 Kan. 14, 27, 523 P.2d 320.
18. Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to submit interrogatories; failure to make specific demand. Franklin v. Northwest Drilling Co., Inc., 215 Kan. 304, 313, 524 P.2d 1194.
19. No abuse of discretion shown in refusal to submit special questions. Plains Transport of Kansas, Inc. v. Baldwin, 217 Kan. 2, 5, 6, 535 P.2d 865.
20. Personal injury action; submission on general verdict indicated (dissenting opinion). Bayer v. Shupe Bros. Co., 223 Kan. 668, 672, 576 P.2d 1078.
21. No abuse of discretion shown in refusal of trial court to submit special questions to jury. Kiser v. Gilmore, 2 Kan. App. 2d 683, 692, 587 P.2d 911.
22. Submission of special interrogatories to jury within discretion of trial court; no abuse of discretion. Schaeffer v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 227 Kan. 509, 520, 608 P.2d 1309.
23. Decision to submit written interrogation to the jury on substantial questions of disputed fact is discretionary. Atkinson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 5 Kan. App. 2d 739, 750, 751, 625 P.2d 505.
24. Refusal of trial court to submit helpful, but not essential, interrogatories to jury not abuse of discretion. English Village Properties, Inc. v. Boettcher & Lieurance Constr. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 307, 317, 640 P.2d 1280 (1982).
25. Special interrogatories to jury rest within trial court's discretion; decision will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. Anderson v. Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc., 249 Kan. 458, 471, 819 P.2d 1192 (1991).
26. Whether court erred by refusing to submit special questions in verdict form regarding assumption of risk examined. Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 256 Kan. 90, 109, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).
27. Special answers determined to be consistent with each other and general verdict. Boyle v. Harries, 22 Kan. App. 2d 686, 694, 923 P.2d 504 (1996).