Turyna v. Martam Construction Co., Inc.
83 F.3d 178 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a jury returns a general verdict that is factually and internally inconsistent, such as finding for a defendant on liability but awarding damages to the plaintiff on the same claim, the verdict cannot stand and the proper remedy is a new trial.
Facts:
- Brad Turyna began working as a truck driver for Martam Construction in January 1986.
- Tamas Kutrovacz was the owner and president of Martam, and Claude Koenig was a vice-president.
- Turyna believed Martam owed him overtime pay for the period between September 19, 1988, and September 26, 1989.
- Martam fired Turyna on September 26, 1989.
- Turyna alleged his termination was in retaliation for his complaints regarding labor practices.
Procedural Posture:
- Brad Turyna filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Martam Construction, Tamas Kutrovacz, and Claude Koenig.
- The lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime (Count I) and retaliatory discharge (Count II), as well as retaliatory discharge under Illinois public policy (also Count II).
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict form finding for Turyna on Count I, but finding 'against plaintiff' for all defendants on the Count II retaliation claims.
- Despite finding against Turyna on liability for Count II, the jury awarded him $35,618.01 in punitive damages against Martam on that same count.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict, including both the compensatory and punitive damage awards.
- Martam filed a post-trial motion under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment to set aside the punitive damages, which the court denied.
- Martam, as the appellant, appealed the judgment on Count II to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Turyna as the appellee.
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 a new trial required when a jury verdict form is internally inconsistent, finding for the defendant on liability for a claim but also awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff on that same claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, J.
Yes. A new trial is required because the jury's verdict is fatally inconsistent and cannot be reconciled. The jury found in favor of the defendants on the liability portion of the retaliatory discharge claim (Count II), yet simultaneously awarded the plaintiff punitive damages against Martam on that exact same claim. The court analyzed this inconsistency under three procedural frameworks. First, viewing it as a general verdict, it is irreconcilably contradictory, as the court cannot know whether the jury intended to find for the plaintiff or the defendant. Second, it does not qualify as a special verdict under Rule 49(a) because the jury was not asked to make specific written findings on each issue of fact. Third, it cannot be saved under Rule 49(b) as a general verdict with interrogatories, because the form did not ask the jury to answer questions on 'one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict.' Since the jury had already been discharged, the inconsistency could not be clarified, leaving a new trial as the only available remedy.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong cautionary tale for trial lawyers and judges about the critical importance of drafting clear and unambiguous jury verdict forms. It reinforces the procedural rule that fatally inconsistent general verdicts cannot stand, and that appellate courts will not speculate as to a jury's true intent to salvage such a verdict. The decision also underscores the practical risk lawyers take by waiving their presence for the return of a verdict, as their absence forfeits the opportunity to identify and correct errors before the jury is discharged, often making a costly new trial the only remedy.
Unlock the full brief for Turyna v. Martam Construction Co., Inc.