Legal Definitions - Special verdict

A special verdict is a specific type of decision rendered by a jury in a court case. Unlike a general verdict, where the jury simply states which party wins or loses, a special verdict requires the jury to answer a series of very precise, factual questions posed by the judge. The jury's role is to determine only the facts of the case based on the evidence presented. Once the jury has provided its answers to these factual questions, the judge then takes those findings and applies the relevant laws to them, ultimately determining the legal outcome, such as who is liable or what remedies are appropriate. This method is often used in complex cases or when there is a strong possibility of an appeal, as it provides a clear and detailed record of the specific facts the jury found to be true.

• Product Liability Lawsuit

  Imagine a case where a consumer sues a bicycle manufacturer, claiming a design flaw in the bicycle's frame caused it to break, leading to an injury. Instead of asking the jury, "Is the manufacturer responsible for the consumer's injury?", the judge might present a series of specific, factual questions for the jury to answer:

  • "Was the bicycle frame defectively designed?"
  • "Did the alleged defect in the frame directly cause the consumer's injury?"
  • "Did the consumer misuse the bicycle in a way that was not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer?"

  How it illustrates: The jury's task is to answer these factual questions (e.g., "Yes," "No," "No"). They are not asked to decide who "wins" the lawsuit or to calculate damages. Once the jury provides its answers, the judge reviews them and applies the law of product liability to determine whether the manufacturer is legally responsible for the accident and injuries, and if so, to what extent.

• Real Estate Contract Dispute

  Consider a dispute between a home buyer and a seller. The buyer claims the seller failed to disclose a significant structural issue with the house, while the seller insists they were unaware of any such problem. A judge might use a special verdict to ask the jury specific questions about the facts:

  • "Did the seller have actual knowledge of the structural issue before the sale?"
  • "Was the structural issue a material defect that would significantly impact the home's value or safety?"
  • "Did the buyer conduct a reasonable inspection of the property before purchase?"

  How it illustrates: The jury's role is to determine the truth of these specific factual claims. For example, they might find that the seller did not have actual knowledge, but the issue was indeed a material defect. The judge then takes these factual findings and applies real estate and contract law principles to determine if the seller breached their duty of disclosure, whether the contract should be rescinded, or if damages are owed.

• Copyright Infringement Case

  Suppose a musician sues another artist, alleging that a song released by the second artist infringes on the copyright of their original composition. Instead of asking the jury to simply decide "Did Artist B infringe Artist A's copyright?", the judge might ask:

  • "Did Artist B have access to Artist A's copyrighted song prior to creating their own?"
  • "Are the two songs substantially similar in their protectable elements (e.g., melody, harmony, rhythm)?"

  How it illustrates: The jury focuses solely on these two critical factual questions. They determine if access occurred and if the songs are substantially similar. The judge then takes these factual determinations and applies the legal framework of copyright law to issue a judgment, deciding whether infringement occurred and what remedies, such as monetary damages or an injunction, might be appropriate.