Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.
320 F.3d 1052 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a jury returns an internally inconsistent special verdict, a district court has the discretion to resubmit the verdict to the jury for clarification so long as the jury has not been discharged. A court then abuses its discretion if it orders a new trial, rather than entering judgment on the jury's second, corrected verdict, if the inconsistency between the first and second verdicts can be reasonably explained by the jury's proper redeliberation.
Facts:
- Fernando Duk, an alcoholic, was drinking heavily while gambling at the MGM Grand Hotel casino.
- After becoming disruptive in an MGM restaurant, Duk refused requests from MGM security to leave.
- MGM security officers performed a citizen's arrest on Duk and placed him in a detention room to await Las Vegas police.
- While Duk was detained, his wife informed MGM security that he was an insulin-dependent diabetic.
- Duk complained of lung and chest pains while in the detention room.
- MGM called for paramedics, who examined Duk and determined he was only intoxicated, without evaluating his heart rate or blood pressure; Duk alleged security failed to inform the paramedics of his chest pain complaint.
- The morning after being released from jail, Duk went to a hospital where he was diagnosed as having suffered a heart attack.
- As a result of the heart attack, Duk sustained severe heart damage that ultimately required a heart transplant.
Procedural Posture:
- Fernando Duk filed a personal injury lawsuit against MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. in federal district court.
- In the first trial, the jury returned an inconsistent special verdict, finding Duk 65% negligent but nonetheless awarding him $3.3 million in damages.
- The district court identified the inconsistency and resubmitted the verdict form to the jury, instructing it to continue deliberating.
- The jury returned a second verdict, finding MGM 51% negligent and Duk 49% negligent, with the damage award unchanged at $3.3 million.
- MGM moved for a new trial, which the district court granted on the grounds that the jury had improperly manipulated the negligence percentages.
- In a second trial with a new jury, a verdict was returned in favor of MGM.
- Duk appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the district court erred in ordering a new trial. MGM cross-appealed, arguing the court erred in resubmitting the first verdict.
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 due to an inconsistency between a jury's first, legally impermissible verdict and its second, internally consistent verdict, where the second verdict was reached after the court resubmitted the first verdict for clarification?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawkins, J.
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by ordering a new trial when a jury's second verdict, corrected after resubmission, is reasonably reconcilable with the first. The practice of resubmitting an inconsistent verdict to a jury for clarification is well-accepted and promotes fairness and efficiency, and it is within the trial court's discretion to do so even when the jury has ignored a 'stop here' instruction on the verdict form, provided the jury is still available. The Seventh Amendment requires a court to attempt to harmonize a jury's findings, and this duty extends to reconciling a post-resubmission verdict with the original. Here, the jury's change in the apportionment of liability in the second verdict can be explained as a legitimate outcome of the redeliberation process the court instructed them to undertake. Unlike cases where an illegal compromise is obvious because the jury manipulated both liability and damages to reach a predetermined award, here the damages amount remained constant. Because a reasonable theory exists to explain the jury's corrected verdict, the district court should have accepted it instead of ordering a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a trial court's discretion to resubmit an inconsistent verdict for juror clarification, viewing it as a preferred and efficient solution when the jury is still empaneled. It significantly limits a court's ability to order a new trial by establishing a strong presumption in favor of the validity of a jury's corrected verdict. By requiring courts to attempt to reconcile the new verdict as a product of legitimate redeliberation, the ruling strengthens the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and protects the jury's role as the primary fact-finder, preventing costly new trials unless a verdict is the result of an obvious and improper compromise.
