Rule 49.Special Verdicts and Interrogatories

Instead of asking a jury to decide who wins, a court can require the jury to answer a series of specific written questions about the facts, known as a special verdict. Rule 49 lets the judge choose the format: written questions with short answers, written forms of possible findings, or any other method the court thinks is appropriate. The judge must give the jury the explanations and instructions needed to answer the questions. If the court’s questions leave out a factual issue that the pleadings or evidence raised, a party waives the right to have a jury decide that issue unless the party demands it before the jury retires; otherwise the judge decides that issue, or is treated as having decided it consistent with the verdict. Generally, neither the court nor the lawyers are allowed to tell the jury how its answers will affect the outcome of the case, with one significant exception.

That exception applies in cases governed by Minnesota’s comparative fault statute. In those cases, the court must tell the jury what effect its answers to the comparative fault question will have, and must let the lawyers comment on that during argument, unless the court believes doing so would confuse the jury because of unresolved or complicated legal questions.

The rule also allows a hybrid approach: a general verdict paired with written interrogatories on specific factual issues. When the general verdict and the answers to the interrogatories agree, the court enters judgment consistent with both. When the interrogatory answers are consistent with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the judge has options: enter judgment based on the answers instead of the general verdict, send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial. When the answers conflict with each other as well as with the general verdict, the court cannot enter judgment and must either send the jury back or order a new trial.