Legal Definitions - general verdict with interrogatories

A general verdict with interrogatories is a specific type of decision rendered by a jury in a civil trial. In this scenario, the jury not only delivers a standard "general verdict" – which simply states which party wins the case and, if applicable, the amount of damages – but also provides written answers to a series of specific factual questions, known as "interrogatories," that are presented by the judge. This method helps to clarify the factual basis for the jury's ultimate decision, allowing the court to understand the reasoning behind their verdict and ensuring consistency in their findings.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Personal Injury Case: Imagine a lawsuit where a pedestrian is suing a driver for injuries sustained in a crosswalk accident. The jury might be asked to deliver a general verdict, such as "We find for the plaintiff and award $100,000 in damages." In addition, the judge could provide interrogatories for the jury to answer, such as:

  • "Did the defendant fail to stop at the red light?" (Yes/No)
  • "Was the plaintiff partially at fault for the accident by not looking before entering the crosswalk?" (Yes/No)
  • "If the plaintiff was partially at fault, what percentage of fault do you attribute to the plaintiff?" (e.g., 25%)

  How this illustrates the term: The jury's general verdict awards damages to the plaintiff. However, the interrogatories provide crucial details about the jury's factual findings regarding fault. If the jury found the plaintiff 25% at fault, the judge would then reduce the $100,000 award by 25% to $75,000, aligning the general verdict with the specific factual findings.

• Contract Dispute: Consider a case where a small business sues a software developer for failing to deliver a custom application on time, causing the business to lose revenue. The jury might return a general verdict stating, "We find for the defendant." Alongside this, the judge could ask the jury to answer interrogatories like:

  • "Was there a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant?" (Yes/No)
  • "Did the defendant fail to deliver the software by the agreed-upon deadline?" (Yes/No)
  • "If the defendant failed to deliver, was this failure excused by a 'force majeure' clause (unforeseeable circumstances) in the contract?" (Yes/No)

  How this illustrates the term: The general verdict indicates the defendant won. The interrogatories help clarify *why* the jury reached that conclusion. For instance, if the jury answered "No" to the first question, it means they found no valid contract existed, which explains why the defendant was not held liable. If they answered "Yes" to the first two questions but "Yes" to the third, it means they found a breach occurred but was excused, providing a different basis for the defendant's victory.