Anderson v. Paulson, 9718

Citation96 N.W.2d 305,77 S.D. 583
Decision Date09 May 1959
Docket NumberNo. 9718,9718
PartiesJulius E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lee PAULSON, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota

Everett A. Bogue, Vermillion, for plaintiff and appellant.

Owen J. Donley, Elk Point, for defendant and respondent.

HERSRUD, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by appellant against the respondent for personal injuries. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and also a written statement signed by all of the jurors which provided 'We, the undersigned jurors, do feel that with the evidence and Court's instructions submitted, the defendant, Lee Paulson, was not guilty of negligence. However, this jury feels Julius Anderson, the plaintiff, should receive money in the amount of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), cash settlement.' The Court then instructed the jury that the written statement so submitted to the Court was without legal force or effect and that the Court would disregard it, but would file it, and stated that, if the verdict for the defendant was conditioned at all upon such statement, that he wanted the jury to understand that such written statement could not be given any force or effect. Then the Court had the verdict read and the following poll of the jury 'Without reference to the informal written statement which the Jury submitted to the Court and signed, I am going to ask you now whether or not this is your verdict, * * *. If this verdict * * * on all the issues in the case is your verdict you will answer yes; if not answer no.' The first juror answered 'Yes'. The second juror inquired 'Your Honor, is it permissible for me to ask a question?' and the Court replied 'You must answer yes or no. Not the verdict of the jury, but your verdict.' The juror then answered 'Yes' and the other jurors followed suit. Plaintiff's attorney was not present when the jury was polled.

The Court entered its order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appeals.

The verdict of the jury and the accompanying statement returned by the jury determine this appeal. The statement of the jury is not mere surplusage for, if the plaintiff should receive $2,500 then the statement cannot be reconciled with the verdict for the defendant as it implies that there is a legal obligation of the defendant to pay the plaintiff $2,500. This goes beyond mere surplusage which is illustrated in Willey v. Alaska Packers' Ass'n, 73 Cal.App. 605, 238 P. 1087, 1089, where in returning a verdict for the defendant, the jury requested the defendant to assist plaintiff's family. The Court said: 'This act in no manner affected the verdict, which embodied the conclusion of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1986
    ...distinguish the facts and circumstances before us from those in Pexa v. Clark, 85 S.D. 37, 176 N.W.2d 497 (1970), and Anderson v. Paulson, 77 S.D. 583, 96 N.W.2d 305 (1959). In Pexa, the jury awarded damages for medical expenses, pain, and suffering caused the decedent, but failed to award ......
  • Berry v. Risdall
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1998
    ...mechanical. The deficiencies in the verdict go to the heart of the jury's findings on the issue of damages. See Anderson v. Paulson, 77 S.D. 583, 585, 96 N.W.2d 305, 306 (1959) (fundamental defect in verdict not waived by plaintiff because of failure to request the court to instruct jury to......
  • Pexa v. Clark
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 16 Abril 1970
    ...SDCL 15--14--30, the verdict cannot be permitted to stand and the motion for a new trial should have been granted. See Anderson v. Paulson, 77 S.D. 583, 96 N.W.2d 305. There was ample undisputed evidence 56-year-old Pexa was a gainfully employed, experienced truck and bus driver and the sol......
  • Bridge v. Karl's, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 26 Abril 1995
    ...the intention of the jury is not clear, certain nor free from ambiguity under the verdict rendered in this case. Anderson v. Paulson, 77 S.D. 583, 96 N.W.2d 305 (1959). When the intention of the jury is a matter of surmise or inference, such a verdict is insufficient within the purview of S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT