Cohn v. JC Penney Company, Inc.
1975 Utah LEXIS 718, 537 P.2d 306 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party waives any error in an informal or insufficient jury verdict by failing to object and request that the jury be sent back for further deliberation when the opportunity to do so is presented by the trial court.
Facts:
- Plaintiff fell on premises occupied by Defendants, resulting in injury.
- Plaintiff incurred medical expenses as a result of the fall.
- Plaintiff lost wages because she was unable to work due to her injuries.
- Counsel for both parties stipulated that Plaintiff incurred medical expenses of $352.25 and lost wages of $656.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendants in district court for damages resulting from a fall.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was submitted a special verdict form.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Defendants negligent and awarded Plaintiff $352.25 for medical expenses and $656.00 for lost income, but $0 for general damages.
- The trial judge held a bench conference regarding the verdict's inconsistency, but Plaintiff's counsel did not object.
- The court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the award of zero general damages was inadequate.
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the denial of the new trial motion to the Supreme Court of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party waive the right to move for a new trial based on a deficient verdict by failing to object and request further jury deliberation when given the opportunity to do so by the trial court?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellett, Justice
Yes. A party waives the right to a new trial based on a deficient jury verdict if that party fails to object or request correction before the jury is discharged. The court reasoned that the proper procedure for an informal or insufficient verdict is for the trial court to require the jury to return for further deliberation. Citing its own precedent in Langton v. International Transport, Inc., the court held that when a party is given the opportunity to have the jury clarify a deficient verdict and fails to do so, any error in that verdict is waived. The court noted that in this case, the verdict awarding special damages for medical bills and lost wages but zero general damages for pain and suffering was deficient in form. The plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity to object during a bench conference but remained silent, thereby forfeiting the right to challenge the verdict's inadequacy later in a motion for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict procedural waiver rule in Utah, placing an affirmative duty on trial counsel to immediately object to inconsistent or deficient jury verdicts. It prevents attorneys from strategically remaining silent in the hope of securing a new trial on damages alone, which the court viewed as a potential trial tactic. The ruling emphasizes the importance of correcting errors at the earliest possible moment to promote judicial efficiency and finality. For future cases, it serves as a clear warning that procedural forfeiture is a significant risk for attorneys who do not act vigilantly before a jury is discharged.
