Rule 49.Special verdicts; general verdict and questions

Current through January 1, 2025 · Last verified July 8, 2026

In one sentenceRule 49 lets the court require a jury to return a special verdict -- written findings on each factual issue -- or a general verdict paired with written questions on specific issues, and sets out how the court resolves a general verdict whose answers are consistent, inconsistent with the verdict, or inconsistent with each other.

Full Text of Rule 49

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b)

(a) Special verdicts.

(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

(2) Instructions. The court shall 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 submit to the jury forms for a general verdict, together with written questions on one or more issues of fact that the jury shall decide. The court shall give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to render a general verdict and answer the questions in writing, and shall direct the jury to do both.

(2) Verdict and answers consistent. When the general verdict and the answers are consistent, the court shall approve, for entry under Rule 58, 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, for entry under Rule 58, an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;

(B) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or

(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 shall not be entered; instead, the court shall direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict or order a new trial.

End

Amendment History

The current West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure took effect January 1, 2025, as part of a rewrite that modernized the rules’ numbering and structure. West Virginia does not publish a per-rule amendment history inside the compiled rules text reproduced here. The text above is verified current through the source’s own January 1, 2025 update; for the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the West Virginia Judiciary’s compiled rules page.

Plain-English Summary

Rule 49 gives the court two alternatives to an ordinary general verdict. It can require a special verdict — nothing but the jury's written findings on each disputed factual issue, submitted through written questions, forms describing the possible findings, or any other method the court considers appropriate — and has to give the jury whatever instructions are needed to make those findings. A party who wants an issue decided by the jury has to demand it before the jury retires; skip that demand, and the court can make its own finding on the issue (or is considered to have made one consistent with its judgment, if it never addresses the issue at all).

The other alternative combines a general verdict with written questions on particular factual issues. When the general verdict and the jury's answers line up, the court enters judgment on both together. When the answers are consistent with each other but clash with the general verdict, the court has options: enter judgment based on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial. But if the answers conflict with each other and with the verdict, judgment can't be entered at all — the court has to send the jury back or start over with a new trial.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a "special verdict"?

A verdict consisting only of the jury's written findings on each disputed issue of fact, without a general finding for either side — the court chooses the format and gives instructions needed to reach those findings.

What happens if the jury's written answers conflict with its general verdict?

If the answers are at least consistent with each other, the court can enter judgment based on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial.

What if the jury's answers are inconsistent with each other and with the general verdict?

The court can't enter judgment at all — it has to direct the jury to reconsider its answers and verdict, or order a new trial.

What happens if I don't ask the jury to decide a factual issue before it retires?

You waive the right to a jury finding on that issue, and the court can make its own finding instead.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure (W. Va. R. Civ. P. 49). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 3). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: special verdictgeneral verdict with interrogatoriesinconsistent jury verdict