Beco Construction Co. v. Harper Contracting, Inc.
130 Idaho 4, 936 P.2d 202, 1997 Ida. App. LEXIS 20 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may properly refuse to accept an internally inconsistent jury verdict and order the jury to continue deliberations to resolve the inconsistency. This is permissible even for a special verdict where procedural rules do not explicitly provide for, but also do not prohibit, this course of action.
Facts:
- Harper Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor on a prison construction project, hired Beco Construction Co., Inc., to produce and lay asphalt.
- In preparation for performing the contract, Beco prepared gravel and conducted gravel testing.
- Before Beco placed any asphalt, the parties terminated their business relationship.
- Beco sought compensation from Harper for the costs incurred in preparing and testing the gravel, but Harper refused to pay.
Procedural Posture:
- Beco Construction Co., Inc. filed a complaint against Harper Contracting, Inc. in district court (trial court) seeking compensation 'on open account'.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of Beco's case, Harper moved for a directed verdict, which the district court denied.
- The jury returned an internally inconsistent verdict, finding both that Beco had waived its right to reimbursement for testing and awarding damages for that testing.
- Over Harper's objection, the district court refused the verdict and instructed the jury to continue deliberations.
- The jury then returned a consistent verdict awarding damages to Beco for the testing services and the gravel.
- Harper filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The district court entered judgment for Beco, including an award for attorney fees and costs, but denied Beco's request for prejudgment interest.
- Harper (appellant) appealed the denial of its post-trial motions to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
- Beco (cross-appellant/appellee) cross-appealed the amount of attorney fees awarded and the denial of certain costs and prejudgment interest.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to accept an internally inconsistent jury verdict and instead ordering the jury to continue deliberations to resolve the inconsistency?
Opinions:
Majority - Perry, Judge
No, the trial court did not err. When a jury's verdict is uncertain or internally inconsistent, the proper procedure is for the court to refuse to accept the verdict and request correction by the jury before it is dismissed. In this case, the jury initially found that Beco had waived its right to reimbursement for testing services but then awarded damages for those same services. The court correctly identified this inconsistency and sent the jury back for further deliberation. Although the rule governing special verdicts (I.R.C.P. 49(a)) does not explicitly authorize this procedure, it also does not prohibit it, and it aligns with the procedure for general verdicts with interrogatories. This action promotes judicial efficiency by allowing the jury to correct its own error, thereby avoiding the need for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a rule of judicial efficiency in Idaho for handling inconsistent jury verdicts. By extending the practice of resubmitting a verdict to the jury from general verdicts to special verdicts, the court provides trial judges with a clear and practical tool to resolve ambiguities before a jury is dismissed. This precedent helps avoid the significant time and expense of ordering a new trial due to a correctable error on the verdict form. The ruling reinforces the trial court's discretion in managing jury proceedings to ensure a clear and just outcome.
