Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSpecial verdictsResubmission of inconsistent verdictsNew trialSeventh AmendmentRule 49(a)special verdictresubmission

Facts

At the first trial in Duk's personal injury action against MGM, the jury received a special verdict form under Nevada comparative negligence law. The jury's first verdict assigned 65% fault to Duk and 35% to MGM, but nevertheless awarded Duk $3.3 million in damages despite instructions to stop if Duk was more than 50% negligent. Before announcing the verdict, the district court sent the jury back to continue deliberations, and the jury returned a second verdict assigning 51% fault to MGM and 49% to Duk while keeping damages the same. The district court later granted MGM a new trial because it viewed the second verdict as improperly manipulated, and the second trial ended in a defense verdict for MGM.

Issue

When a jury returns an inconsistent special verdict but has not yet been discharged, may the district court resubmit the verdict for clarification even if the form contains a "stop here" instruction? If the jury then returns a second, internally consistent verdict, may the court reject it and order a new trial solely because it differs from the first verdict?

Rule

When a jury is still available, a district court has discretion to resubmit an inconsistent special verdict for clarification under Rule 49(a), even where the verdict form includes a "stop here" instruction. After resubmission, the court must attempt to reconcile the resulting verdict with the earlier verdict on any reasonable theory consistent with the evidence, and may not order a new trial unless the verdict cannot be legitimately harmonized.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in Phoenix, a jury receives a special verdict form under a comparative-fault statute barring recovery if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. The jury finds that Elena Ortiz was 60% negligent and Desert Vista Transport was 40% negligent, but it also answers the damages question and awards Elena $420,000. Before the jury is discharged, the judge notices the inconsistency.

What is the best ruling on whether the judge may send the verdict back to the jury?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a district court has discretion to resubmit an inconsistent special verdict for clarification while the jury is still available. That is true even though Rule 49(a) does not expressly mention resubmission. The point is to let the original factfinder clarify its own inconsistent answers in a fair and efficient way rather than forcing the court to guess or order a new trial. (Derived from Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel (n.d.).)