Me. R. Civ. P. 49

As amended through September 25, 2024

Rule 49 - Special Verdicts and Interrogatories

(a) Special Verdicts. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.

(b) General Verdict Accompanied by Answer to Interrogatories. The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial.

Me. R. Civ. P. 49

COMMENTS

§49.1 Verdict Forms.

M. R. Civ. P. 49(a) gives the trial court considerable discretion to develop a verdict form to assist the jury in reporting its verdict. Hansen v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 1999 ME 45, 13, 726 A.2d 220, 223; Thurston v. 3K Kamper Ko., Inc., 482 A.2d 837 (Me. 1984).

A form that addresses specific fact questions to the jury may reduce the amount of instruction needed, since the jury may be told what facts to address and the burden of proof to apply in lieu of complicated instructions outlining law and facts that must be decided before a general verdict can be reached. Individual questions on verdict forms may be particularly important to determine if affirmative defenses have been proven in civil cases. See Thibodeau v. Slaney, 2000 ME 116, 23, 755 A.2d 1051, 1057. The jury may also be questioned orally about such issues, but oral questioning has greater potential for confusion in announcing the verdict.

Juries should not be asked to make any more detailed findings than necessary. For example, separating questions of negligence and proximate cause on verdict forms is "a practice that is neither necessary nor desirable." Shaw v. Bolduc, 658 A.2d 299, 231 (Me. 1995).

Once a jury has been discharged, even a statement by the jury still in the courthouse may not be sufficient to change an announced and accepted verdict.

Taylor v. Lapomarda, 1997 ME 216, 4-10, 702 A.2d 685, 686-89. This reflects the strong policy of M.R. Evid. § 606(b) that there be no inquiry into juror's thought processes in reaching a verdict and that jurors not be able to impeach their own verdicts. Taylor v. Lapomarda, 1997 ME 216, 6-10, 702 A.2d at 687-89.