N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-049
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-049
ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. - This rule is deemed to have superseded former Trial Court Rule 70-103, derived from 70-103, C.S. 1929, which were substantially the same. All of the following pre-1982 case notes were taken from cases decided prior to the 1982 amendment. Constitutionality. - Laws 1889, ch. 45, §1 (70-103, C.S. 1929, now superseded by this rule), did not infringe seventh amendment of United States Constitution or any other constitutional provision; it was within power of territorial legislature to provide that on trial of a common-law action, court may in addition to the general verdict require specific answers to special interrogatories, and when a conflict is found between the two, render such judgment as the answers to the special questions compel. Walker v. New Mexico & S. Pac. R.R., 165 U.S. 593, 17 S. Ct. 421, 41 L. Ed. 837 (1897). General verdicts and special verdicts distinguished. Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. Special verdict and special interrogatories with general verdict distinguished. Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. Purpose of special findings is to test validity of general verdict by ascertaining whether or not it may have been the result of misapprehension of the law through actual findings in material conflict with findings which in their absence would be implied from general verdict. Bryant v. H.B. Lynn Drilling Corp., 1959-NMSC-001, 65 N.M. 177, 334 P.2d 707. Proper purpose of submitting interrogatories is to aid jury, not to cross-examine it. Landers v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1963 -NMSC-162, 73 N.M. 131, 386 P.2d 46; Segura v. Molycorp, Inc., 1981-NMSC-116, 97 N.M. 13, 636 P.2d 284. Special findings upon any material matter in case are permitted. Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co., 1907-NMSC-017, 14 N.M. 96, 89 P. 275. Submission of special interrogatories lies largely in discretion of trial judge. Landers v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1963 -NMSC-162, , 73 N.M. 131, 386 P.2d 46. Giving of special interrogatories is discretionary with the trial court, subject to review for abuse. Bryan v. Phillips, 1962-NMSC-023, 70 N.M. 1, 369 P.2d 37. Trial court may exercise a reasonable discretion in matter of what questions should be submitted to the jury for special findings, and unless that discretion is abused, it will not be disturbed. Crocker v. Johnston, 1939-NMSC-054, 43 N.M. 469, 95 P.2d 214. It is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, based on the facts and circumstances involved in the particular case, to determine whether the matter shall be submitted to the jury on general verdicts or special interrogatories, or both. Segura v. Molycorp, Inc., 1981-NMSC-116, 97 N.M. 13, 636 P.2d 284. Despite word "shall". - Notwithstanding use of the word "shall," mandatory in form, counsel agree that trial court exercises a broad discretion in applying this rule. Madsen v. Read, 1954-NMSC-086, 58 N.M. 567, 273 P.2d 845. Section 70-103, C.S. 1929 (now superseded by this rule), though mandatory in form, did not change general rule giving trial court discretionary power in submission of special interrogatories. Larsen v. Bliss, 1939-NMSC-027, 43 N.M. 265, 91 P.2d 811. Court is not required to submit improper questions to jury because one of the parties to the cause requests it. Robinson v. Palatine Ins. Co., 1901 -NMSC-021, 11 N.M. 162, 66 P. 535. Section 70-103, C.S. 1929 (now superseded by this rule) was to be construed to enable court in its discretion to refuse to submit questions not regarded as material, and to refuse to set aside a verdict if it was possible to reconcile special findings with it. Walker v. New Mexico & S.P. Ry., 1893 -NMSC-027, 7 N.M. 282, 34 P. 43, aff'd, 165 U.S. 593, 17 S. Ct. 421, 41 L. Ed. 837 (1897). Court did not err in submitting special interrogatories to jury relating to route taken by plaintiff in crossing intersection, where whole issue of contributory negligence revolved around manner in which she crossed the intersection; the questions concerned the determination of ultimate facts. Bryan v. Phillips, 1962-NMSC-023, 70 N.M. 1, 369 P.2d 37. Refusal to submit interrogatories justified. - There was no abuse of discretion in trial court's refusal to submit certain special interrogatories to the jury where the only issues were whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether his negligence had proximately caused death of administrator's deceased, and special interrogatories could only tend to confuse. Madsen v. Read, 1954-NMSC-086, 58 N.M. 567, 273 P.2d 845. If court submits questions to jury, it can withdraw them from their consideration if it sees fit. Robinson v. Palatine Ins. Co., 1901 -NMSC-021, 11 N.M. 162, 66 P. 535. Answers as findings of fact. - Answers to special interrogatories submitted under this rule constituted a finding of fact by the jury on such issues and final adjudication of such factual question between the parties, unless for some proper reason answers must be set aside by the court. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59. Findings by a jury in answer to interrogatories stand in same posture on appeal as finding of fact by the trial court in case tried without a jury. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59. Interrogatories to be accompanied by general verdict. - Only provision for submitting special interrogatories to a jury is when they are accompanied by a general verdict, unless the latter is waived or matter is so submitted by consent. Saavedra v. City of Albuquerque, 1959-NMSC-036, 65 N.M. 379, 338 P.2d 110; Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. General verdict a matter of right. - Reversible error is committed when special interrogatories are submitted to jury without inclusion of a general verdict, over objection of the claimant, as he is entitled to a general verdict as a matter of right when he asks for it. Saavedra v. City of Albuquerque, 1959-NMSC-036, 65 N.M. 379, 338 P.2d 110; Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. Where no general verdict, question whether special verdict deemed equivalent. - Where there is no traditional general verdict, the question, where the court submits the case to the jury on a special verdict, is whether the jury's answers are the equivalent of a general verdict. Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. Jury's answer determinative of plaintiff's rights given effect as general verdict. - Where a jury's answer is determinative of the right of the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant as an alleged tortfeasor, that answer is the equivalent of, and is to be given effect as, a general verdict. Dessauer v. Memorial Gen. Hosp., 1981 -NMCA-051, 96 N.M. 92, 628 P.2d 337. Every reasonable presumption favoring general verdict will be indulged in, while nothing will be presumed in favor of the special findings. Gallegos v. Sandoval, 1909-NMSC-025, 15 N.M. 216, 106 P. 373. No presumption will be indulged in favor of special findings as against the general verdict. Crocker v. Johnston, 1939-NMSC-054, 43 N.M. 469, 95 P.2d 214. Special findings override general verdict only when both cannot stand. Smith v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1914 -NMSC-054, 19 N.M. 247, 142 P. 150. When a special verdict contradicts the general verdict on a material issue, the former controls. Terry v. Biswell, 1958-NMSC-045, 64 N.M. 153, 326 P.2d 89. Special findings of jury will not justify setting aside of general verdict, unless such findings are in irreconcilable conflict with general verdict. Bass v. Dehner, 103 F.2d 28 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 580, 60 S. Ct. 100, 84 L. Ed. 486, rehearing denied, 308 U.S. 635, 60 S. Ct. 136, 84 L. Ed. 528 (1939); Thayer v. Denver & R.G.R.R. Co.., 1919-NMSC-050, 25 N.M. 559, 185 P. 542. General verdict must conform to answers to special interrogatories. - Where the answers to special interrogatories are inconsistent with the general verdict, the answers to the special interrogatories will override the general verdict and the court must enter judgment according to the answers to the special interrogatories. Helena Chem. Co. v. Uribe, 2013-NMCA-017, 293 P.3d 888, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-012. Where plaintiff was a crop protection company that blended, stored, and distributed fertilizers and other nutrients to local farmers; defendant, who resided across the street from plaintiff's facility, made statements and presentations in the media, to the legislature, and at community meetings about plaintiff and attempted to interfere with plaintiff's attempts to communicate with the public to educate the community about plaintiff's operations; plaintiff sued defendant for prima facie tort; the jury returned a general verdict awarding plaintiff nominal damages and a special verdict awarding plaintiff punitive damages; in answer to a special interrogatory, the jury determined that defendant acted intentionally to harm plaintiff, but that defendant's actions did not cause plaintiff harm; the district court read aloud only the general and special verdicts, but did not read the jury's answers to the special interrogatories; the inconsistency between the general verdict and the special interrogatories went unnoticed until after the jury was excused; and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff consistent with the general verdict, the trial court erred in entering judgment that was inconsistent with the jury's answers to the special interrogatories, and the trial court's failure to read the special interrogatories and answers aloud or to give them to counsel to read, before excusing the jury, was a fatal error that required reversal. Helena Chem. Co. v. Uribe, 2013-NMCA-017, 293 P.3d 888, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-012. Verdict should express clear intent of jury to award damages. - The verdict should leave no question as to the clear intent of the jury to render an award of damages and as to the amount of damages. Casarez v. Garcia, 1983-NMCA-013, 99 N.M. 508, 660 P.2d 598. Finding on damages controlling. - Where jury was instructed on issue of special damages and on issue of general compensatory damages, jury's finding of no special damages controlled general verdict. Rockafellow v. New Mexico State Tribune Co., 1964-NMSC-238, 74 N.M. 652, 397 P.2d 303. Trial court erred in setting aside judgment in plaintiff's favor, on grounds of inconsistency with answer to special interrogatory finding that plaintiff failed to cross street at crosswalk, absent inquiry as to whether such negligence contributed proximately to the accident. Terry v. Bisswell, 1958-NMSC-045, 64 N.M. 153, 326 P.2d 89. Separate verdicts on joint trial of issues. - Where issue in suit upon promissory note and issue upon garnishment thereon, instituted at same time, were both submitted to jury, defendant in promissory note issue had no right to separate trials, nor to have garnishment tried before main issue, but the court, in its discretion, could direct separate verdicts to be returned and that issues be tried at same time. Traylor v. First Nat'l Bank, 1920-NMSC-084, 26 N.M. 375, 193 P. 404. Although the defendant, at least initially, had consented to a jury trial of a laches issue, her motion for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's case in chief and her explicit casting of the laches issue as an equitable issue for decision by the court, without objection by the plaintiff, make it clear that the parties never expressly or impliedly consented to a jury trial of the issue. Therefore, Rule 39(B) was not applicable to the laches issue as it developed at trial, so that it was proper for the trial court to decide the issue when the defendant, following the court's declaration of a mistrial, renewed her motion to dismiss under Rule 41(B). Garcia v. Garcia, 1991-NMSC-023, 111 N.M. 581, 808 P.2d 31. Special findings supporting verdict. - Special findings, in order to support general verdict, must correspond to the proofs and be within the pleadings. Thompson v. Albuquerque Traction Co., 1910-NMSC-028, 15 N.M. 407, 110 P. 552. Verdict ignoring interrogatories. - If jury returns a general verdict ignoring questions submitted to it, and judge accepts verdict as returned and discharges jury, it is the same as though court had refused to submit them in the first instance. Robinson v. Palatine Ins. Co., 1901 -NMSC-021, 11 N.M. 162, 66 P. 535. Form of questions. - Questions presented for special findings which assume as true material facts in issue which are not admitted, should not be submitted. Blake v. Cavins, 1919-NMSC-047, 25 N.M. 574, 185 P. 374. Error in form must be preserved. - Form of interrogatory submitted to the jury cannot be reviewed for error claimed for the first time on appeal. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59. Objection insufficient. - Objection to submission of special interrogatories on grounds that they would tend to confuse the jury "by introducing collateral matters and by particularizing," was not sufficient to alert mind of the trial judge to the specific vice claimed. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59. Scope of review. - Where only assignment of error is refusal of motion for judgment on special findings of the jury, supreme court is limited to determination of their consistency with the general verdict. Smith v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1914 -NMSC-054, 19 N.M. 247, 142 P. 150. Former law not repealed by implication. - Code of Civil Procedure of 1897 did not repeal Laws 1889, ch. 45, §1 (Comp. Stat. 1929, §70-103, now superseded by this rule), providing that juries when required shall make special findings. Schofield v. Territory ex rel. American Valley Co., 1899-NMSC-004, 9 N.M. 526, 56 P. 306, appeal dismissed, 20 S. Ct. 1029, 44 L. Ed. 1222 (1900). Law reviews. - For article, "The `New Rules' in New Mexico," see 1 Nat. Resources J. 96 (1961). For article, "Medical Malpractice Legislation in New Mexico," see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 5 (1976-77). For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to civil procedure, see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 251 (1983). For article, "Statutory Adoption of Several Liability in New Mexico: A Commentary and Quasi-Legislative History," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 483 (1988). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 75B Am. Jur. 2d Trial §§1750, 1751, 1835, 1836, 1855, 1859. Duty of jury to follow instructions as to amount of party's liability, if liable at all, 23 A.L.R. 305. Power of court to reduce or increase verdict without giving party affected the option to submit to a new trial, 53 A.L.R. 779, 95 A.L.R. 1163. Power of court to add interest to verdict returned by jury, 72 A.L.R. 1150. Verdict as affected by agreement in advance among jurors to abide by less than unanimous vote, 73 A.L.R. 93. Necessity of verdict against servant or agent as condition of verdict against master or principal for tort of servant or agent, 78 A.L.R. 365. Finding for "defendants" as inuring to benefit of defaulting defendant, 78 A.L.R. 938. Court's power to increase or reduce verdict without giving party affected option to submit to new trial, 95 A.L.R. 1163. Absence of issue as to amount of recovery, as distinguished from right to recover, as justifying return of verdict which does not assess amount, 105 A.L.R. 1075. Court's power to mold or amend verdict with respect to parties for or against whom it was rendered, 106 A.L.R. 418. Curing error of jury in attempting to apportion damages as between joint tort-feasor by remittitur and all but one defendant, 108 A.L.R. 795, 46 A.L.R.3d 801. Verdict which finds for party upon his cause of action or counterclaim for money judgment, but which does not state amount of recovery, or is indefinite in this regard, or which affirmatively states that he is entitled to no amount, 116 A.L.R. 828, 49 A.L.R.2d 1328. Correction by trial judge of verdict which finds for party upon his cause of action but which does not state amount of recovery or is indefinite in this regard, or which affirmatively states that he is entitled to no amount, 116 A.L.R. 847, 49 A.L.R.2d 1328. Pleading of estoppel by verdict, 120 A.L.R. 69. Failure of one or more jurors to join in answer to special interrogatory or special verdict as affecting verdict, 155 A.L.R. 586. Power of trial court to correct its misinterpretation of jury's verdict, 160 A.L.R. 457. Propriety of court questioning jury as to meaning of the verdict or for the purpose of correcting it in matters of form, 164 A.L.R. 989. Validity and effect of verdict in civil action finding defendant "not guilty," 7 A.L.R.2d 1341. Reversible effect of informing jury of the effect that their answers to special interrogatories or special issues may have upon ultimate liability or judgment, 90 A.L.R.2d 1040. Withdrawal of written special interrogatories or special questions submitted to jury, 91 A.L.R.2d 776. Submission of special interrogatories in connection with general verdict under federal Rule 49(B), and state counterparts, 6 A.L.R.3d 438. Quotient verdicts, 8 A.L.R.3d 335. Validity of verdict or verdicts by same jury in personal injury action awarding damages to injured spouse but denying recovery to other spouse seeking collateral damages, or vice versa, 66 A.L.R.3d 472. Validity of verdict awarding plaintiff in personal injury action on amount of medical expenses but failing to award damages for pain and suffering, 55 A.L.R.4th 186. Criminal law: propriety of reassembling jury to amend, correct, clarify, or otherwise change verdict after jury has been discharged, or has reached or sealed its verdict and separated, 14 A.L.R.5th 89. 89 C.J.S. Trial § 491.