Stillwell v. the Salvation Army
167 Cal. App. 4th 360, 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 616, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a jury returns irreconcilably inconsistent special verdicts, the proper remedy is to order a new trial, not for the trial court to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) by selectively crediting one inconsistent finding over the other.
Facts:
- Arthur Stillwell began working for The Salvation Army (TSA) in 1962 and, after some breaks, worked continuously from 1987 until 2003.
- Throughout his long career, various TSA managers made repeated oral assurances to Stillwell of his continued employment, stating he would have a job as long as he wanted to work.
- In 1997, Stillwell accepted a new position within TSA to oversee a large construction project.
- In connection with this new position, Stillwell signed a written employment agreement in April 1998 (the '1998 Agreement') that contained a clause stating his employment was 'at will.'
- The 1998 Agreement also included a provision stating it was 'not effective until signed by the Field Secretary for Personnel,' but it was signed by an Assistant Field Secretary for Personnel.
- TSA terminated Stillwell's employment on June 23, 2003.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Stillwell sued The Salvation Army (TSA) in trial court for breach of an implied employment contract.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that the 1998 written 'at-will' employment agreement was effective, but also found that TSA breached an implied promise to discharge Stillwell only for good cause, awarding him $155,363.38 in damages.
- TSA filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent.
- The trial court granted TSA's motion for JNOV, concluding that the express 'at-will' term in the written agreement, which the jury found effective, must prevail over any implied agreement.
- The trial court declared the motion for a new trial moot and entered judgment in favor of TSA.
- Stillwell, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it proper for a trial court to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) by selectively accepting one of a jury's irreconcilably inconsistent special verdicts as a matter of law to negate the other verdicts?
Opinions:
Majority - Aaron, J.
No. A trial court errs when it grants a judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on one part of a jury's irreconcilably inconsistent special verdict. A JNOV cannot be dependent on another of the jury's verdicts in the case. The court reasoned that when a jury returns contradictory findings of fact based on the same evidence—such as finding both that an at-will contract is effective and that an implied for-cause contract was breached—both findings are equally 'against the law.' Citing Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co., the court held that an appellate court is not permitted to choose between inconsistent answers, and therefore a trial court cannot do so through a JNOV. The only proper remedy for such a verdict is to order a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural rule for handling inconsistent jury verdicts, clarifying that a trial court cannot resolve the inconsistency by simply choosing the verdict it finds more legally sound and entering a JNOV. By mandating a new trial, the ruling preserves the jury's role as the exclusive finder of fact and prevents judges from substituting their judgment for the jury's on contradictory factual findings. This precedent guides trial courts to reject attempts by parties to salvage a favorable finding from a legally incoherent verdict and instead requires a complete retrial to ensure a consistent and lawful outcome.
