Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Nollenberger v. United Air Lines

United States District Court for the District of Nevada · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 49(b)special interrogatoriesgeneral verdictsnew trialFRCP 49(b)special verdictgeneral verdict

Facts

The court used Rule 49(b) to submit special interrogatories and a general verdict in the Nollenberger, Matlock, Theobald, and Thompson wrongful death cases. In Nollenberger and Matlock, the jury answered damages-related interrogatories concerning work expectancy, earnings, pension, personal expenses, taxes, inflation, and discount rate, and also returned a general verdict fixing total damages. The court found the special answers internally consistent and supported by the evidence, but concluded that in Nollenberger and Matlock they could not be harmonized with the general verdicts. The plaintiffs asked the court to submit additional interrogatories, calculate damages from the answers, or grant a new trial.

Issue

When a jury returns answers to Rule 49(b) special interrogatories that are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict, may the court submit additional interrogatories after the verdict has been returned, or must it treat the answers as controlling and enter judgment in accordance with them if the damages can be calculated from those answers?

Rule

Under Rule 49(b), the court must first attempt to harmonize the special answers with the general verdict if possible under a fair reading. If the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the answers control over the general verdict, and the court may enter judgment in accordance with the answers, return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict, or order a new trial. The court is not empowered under Rule 49(b) to submit additional interrogatories after the jury has already returned its special answers and general verdict.

🔒

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 wrongful death trial in Phoenix, the judge submits a general verdict form plus written interrogatories on lost earnings, personal expenses, and discount rate. The jury's answers, when reasonably read together, support a damages range that includes the exact amount of the general verdict, although the plaintiff argues the fit is not obvious at first glance.

How should the court proceed under Rule 49(b)?

Explanation. The court's first duty is to attempt to harmonize the interrogatory answers and the general verdict under a fair reading. If they can be reconciled, the court should do so and enter judgment accordingly. The majority emphasized that inconsistency is not presumed and that courts must try to save the verdict if possible. (Derived from Nollenberger v. United Air Lines (n.d.).)