Lexplug logoLexplug

Fernando Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
320 F.3d 1052 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a jury returns an internally inconsistent special verdict, a district court has the discretion to resubmit the verdict to the still-available jury for clarification. A court must then accept the jury's second, internally consistent verdict and may not order a new trial if the difference between the two verdicts can be reconciled on any reasonable theory, such as the jury having properly engaged in further deliberations.


Facts:

  • Fernando Duk, an alcoholic and insulin-dependent diabetic, was drinking heavily and became disruptive at the MGM Grand Hotel casino.
  • MGM security, led by Mike Reece, performed a citizen's arrest on Duk and placed him in a detention room to await police.
  • Duk's wife called MGM security and informed them that her husband was an insulin-dependent diabetic.
  • While in detention, Duk complained of lung pain, and MGM called for paramedics from American Medical Response (AMR).
  • AMR paramedics examined Duk, concluded he was merely intoxicated, and found no other medical problems without evaluating his heart rate or blood pressure.
  • Duk was subsequently transported to the Clark County Detention Center.
  • The following morning after his release, Duk went to a hospital where he was diagnosed as having suffered a heart attack.
  • The heart attack caused severe damage to his heart, ultimately necessitating a heart transplant.

Procedural Posture:

  • Fernando Duk filed a personal injury lawsuit against MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
  • In the first trial, the jury returned an inconsistent special verdict, finding Duk 65% negligent (barring recovery under Nevada law) but awarding him $3.3 million in damages.
  • Before announcing the verdict, the district court resubmitted the verdict form to the jury and instructed it to continue deliberations to resolve the inconsistency.
  • The jury returned a second verdict, finding Duk 49% negligent and MGM 51% negligent, while keeping the $3.3 million damages award.
  • MGM moved for a new trial, arguing the second verdict was an improper compromise.
  • The district court granted MGM's motion for a new trial.
  • A second trial was held, which resulted in a defense verdict for MGM.
  • Duk, as appellant, appealed the district court's order granting a new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. MGM cross-appealed as appellee.

Locked

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 district court abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial when a jury, after being asked to clarify an inconsistent special verdict, returns a second, internally consistent verdict that differs from the first in its apportionment of liability but not in its damages award?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Hawkins

No. A district court abuses its discretion by ordering a new trial when a corrected jury verdict is reconcilable with the original inconsistent verdict. The court first held that resubmitting the inconsistent special verdict to the jury was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion. Citing precedent like Mateyko v. Felix, the court affirmed that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) does not explicitly authorize resubmission for special verdicts, it does not prohibit it, and the practice promotes fairness and efficiency. The court distinguished Floyd v. Laws—which required disregarding answers given after a 'stop here' instruction as surplusage—by noting the jury in Floyd had already been dismissed, whereas here, the jury was still available to correct its own error. Secondly, the court held that ordering a new trial was an abuse of discretion because the Seventh Amendment requires a court to reconcile seemingly inconsistent verdicts if possible. The inconsistency between the first and second verdicts was explainable by the jury engaging in the very redeliberation the court instructed it to undertake. Unlike cases where an illegal compromise was obvious, here the damages amount remained constant, making it plausible the jury simply re-evaluated the apportionment of fault. Because a reasonable theory could explain the jury's actions, the second verdict should have been accepted.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the Ninth Circuit's procedure for handling inconsistent special verdicts under FRCP 49(a), establishing resubmission to a still-empaneled jury as the preferred method over ordering a new trial. It clarifies that the 'surplusage' rule from Floyd v. Laws is inapplicable when the jury has not yet been dismissed. The ruling sets a high standard for trial courts seeking to set aside a corrected verdict, requiring deference to the jury's redeliberative process unless an improper compromise is transparently obvious. This strengthens the finality of jury decisions and promotes judicial efficiency by discouraging costly and time-consuming new trials.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fernando Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"