Legal Definitions - general tail

The general-verdict rule is a legal principle that applies when a jury delivers a simple, overall decision (a "general verdict") in a case involving several different legal claims or theories for why one party should win. Under this rule, if the jury finds in favor of one party without specifying which particular claim or theory it agreed with, an appeals court will assume that the jury found sufficient evidence to support the winning party on every single claim or theory presented. This makes it more difficult for the losing party to overturn the verdict on appeal, as they would need to demonstrate that all of the legal claims or theories were flawed, not just one.

Here are some examples to illustrate the general-verdict rule:

• Business Contract Dispute: Imagine a software development company sues a client for non-payment, alleging two distinct legal reasons: first, "breach of contract" because the client failed to pay as per their agreement, and second, "unjust enrichment" because the client benefited from the software without paying, even if the contract itself had a technical flaw. The jury hears all the evidence and returns a general verdict, simply stating they find in favor of the software company and award a specific amount of damages.

  How the rule applies: If the client appeals this decision, the general-verdict rule means the appeals court will presume the jury found the client liable for both breach of contract and unjust enrichment. To successfully overturn the verdict, the client would need to prove that there was insufficient evidence to support both claims. If the client can only show that the breach of contract claim was weak, but not the unjust enrichment claim, the verdict will likely stand because the jury is presumed to have found for the software company on all valid theories.

• Personal Injury Case: A pedestrian is hit by a car and sues the driver. The pedestrian's lawsuit includes two theories of liability: "negligence" (the driver was careless) and "recklessness" (the driver acted with extreme disregard for safety). After hearing all the testimony, the jury delivers a general verdict, finding the driver liable and awarding the pedestrian compensation.

  How the rule applies: Under the general-verdict rule, an appeals court reviewing this case would assume the jury found the driver liable for both negligence and recklessness. If the driver appeals, arguing there wasn't enough evidence to prove recklessness, the verdict could still be upheld if there was sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim. The rule presumes the jury found for the pedestrian on all presented theories, making it harder for the driver to win an appeal by disproving only one.

• Product Liability Claim: A consumer is injured by a household appliance and sues the manufacturer. The consumer's legal team presents two main arguments: "strict product liability" (the product was inherently dangerous or defective, regardless of the manufacturer's intent) and "negligent design" (the manufacturer was careless in how they designed the product, leading to the defect). The jury returns a general verdict in favor of the consumer, awarding damages.

  How the rule applies: When the manufacturer appeals, the general-verdict rule dictates that the appellate court will presume the jury found the manufacturer liable based on both strict product liability and negligent design. For the manufacturer to succeed on appeal, they would need to demonstrate that there was insufficient evidence to support both theories of liability. If only one theory was found to be unsupported by the evidence, the overall verdict in favor of the consumer would likely remain intact.