McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of America, 84-867
| Decision Date | 17 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-867,84-867 |
| Parties | Edward McCONNELL, Jr., Edward McConnell, Sr., and Shirley McConnell, Appellants, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, A Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Michael G. Reilly of Perkins, Sacks & Hannan, Council Bluffs, and Dwight W. James, Roxanne Barton Conlin, and Dennis P. Ogden of James & Galligan, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Philip Willson of Smith, Peterson, Beckman & Willson, Council Bluffs, and Monte Belot of Hall, Levy, Lively, Viets & De Vor, Coffeyville, Kansas, for appellee.
Considered by UHLENHOPP, P.J., and McCORMICK, SCHULTZ, CARTER, and WOLLE, JJ.
During the second day of jury deliberations in this personal injury case the jurors presented to the trial court a series of written questions. After consulting with counsel the court responded to the questions in writing, and thereafter the jury returned special verdicts on which judgment was entered for defendant Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). The trial court refused to set aside judgment entered pursuant to the jury's special verdicts, finding no prejudicial error had been committed. We affirm.
Plaintiffs Edward McConnell, Jr., Edward McConnell, Sr., and Shirley McConnell (McConnells) commenced a products liability action against Alcoa and several other defendants, seeking damages for injuries sustained by Edward, Jr. when a bottle cap burst off a bottle he was attempting to open and struck him in the face. The McConnells alleged causes of action based on theories of negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability against Alcoa, which had manufactured the bottle cap, and others in the distribution line. By the time the case had been tried and submitted to the jury, all defendants except Alcoa had been dismissed from the action. The court submitted the case against Alcoa to the jury on special verdicts consisting of fourteen "interrogatories." 1 Questions concerning Alcoa's liability to the McConnells on their alternate theories of strict liability and negligence were addressed in the first four interrogatories:
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
We, the Jury, find the following special verdict on the issues submitted to us: Interrogatory No. 1: Is Alcoa strictly liable?
Answer "yes" or "no"
ANSWER: __________
(If your answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is "no," do not answer Interrogatory No. 2.)
Interrogatory No. 2: Was the defect a proximate cause of injury or damage to the Plaintiffs?
Answer "yes" or "no"
ANSWER: __________
Interrogatory No. 3: Was Alcoa negligent?
Answer "yes" or "no"
ANSWER: __________
(If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 is "no", do not answer Interrogatory No. 4.)
Interrogatory No. 4: Was the negligence of Alcoa a proximate cause of the injury or damage to the Plaintiffs?
Answer "yes" or "no"
ANSWER: __________
To assist the jury in answering those four special verdicts, Instruction No. 17 provided:
If you have answered "yes" to Interrogatory No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 2 or to Interrogatory No. 3 and Interrogatory No. 4, or to all four of such interrogatories, you should proceed to determine the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs Edward McConnell, Jr. and Shirley McConnell.
During the second day of its deliberations, the jury presented a series of four hand-written questions to the trial court, the last two of which asked:
On inst. No. 17 we answered yes to only one interrogatory, do we proceed to Interrogatory No. 5 or omit and go on.
Inst. No. 17. If we answer yes to only one of the interrogatory questions should we determine amount of damage sustained or should we skip Inst. No. 18 and go to Inst. No. 19.
(Instruction 18 was the quotient verdict instruction, and instruction 19 was the first of several instructions concerning damage issues only.)
Upon receiving those two questions from the jury, the trial court conferred with counsel for the parties to determine what responses would be most appropriate. Counsel for McConnells first agreed with the court's suggestion that it inquire of the jurors whether they had answered the first four special verdicts and, if so, what were their answers. When such an inquiry had been prepared, however, McConnells' attorney objected to such an inquiry on the ground that the jury was confused and might not understand that one "yes" and three "no" answers to the first four special verdicts would require entry of a judgment for Alcoa. The court nevertheless submitted its inquiry in writing, and the jury responded as follows:
Member of the Jury:
With respect to your last two questions, the Court inquires of you as follows:
Have you answered Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4? yes
If so, please indicate your answers to each of those Interrogatories below.
Interrogatory No. 2. Skipped as instructed
Interrogatory No. 3. Yes
The jurors' answers to interrogatories one and two indicated that they had found for Alcoa on the strict liability claim. By their answers to interrogatories 3 and 4, the jurors indicated that although Alcoa had been negligent, that negligence was not a proximate cause of McConnells' damages. After conferring again with counsel, and after plaintiffs' counsel again voiced essentially the same objection, the court directed the jurors to indicate on the special verdict form their answers to the first four interrogatories and sign the form. When the jurors by written question then inquired whether they should before signing the special verdicts also answer interrogatories 5 through 14 pertaining to damage issues, the trial court answered:
Members of the Jury:
You should not answer Interrogatories 5 through 14. You should sign the final page and return the Instructions and Special Verdict Form to the Bailiff.
The jury then signed and returned the special verdict form finding that Alcoa was not strictly liable and that its negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs' damages. Judgment for Alcoa was entered accordingly.
McConnells filed a motion for new trial contending that the trial court's communications with the jury constituted prejudicial error. On appeal from the denial of their new trial motion, McConnells characterize the court's communications as erroneous in three respects: (1) that the court improperly directed a verdict for Alcoa; (2) that the court improperly communicated with the jury; and (3) that the court improperly coerced the jury to return the special verdicts favoring Alcoa.
We allow a trial court broad but not unlimited discretion in ruling upon motions for new trial and will only reverse its determination upon a finding that it has abused its discretion. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(3); see Thomas Truck and Caster Co. v. Buffalo Caster & Wheel Corp., 210 N.W.2d 532, 536 (Iowa 1973). When misconduct is asserted as a ground for a new trial, it must appear from the record that the misconduct caused prejudice to the moving party or that a different result would have been probable but for such misconduct. Laguna v. Prouty, 300 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Iowa 1981) (); Yeager v. Durflinger, 280 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 1979) ().
McConnells contend that the jury had not completed its deliberations when the trial court elicited answers to the special verdicts, and therefore the court's actions had the effect of directing a verdict for defendant. They argue that the court's conduct forced the jury to render a verdict prematurely and thereby amounted to a judicial ruling as a matter of law in favor of Alcoa. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 216. The direction of a verdict in this case would have constituted error because the evidence generated factual questions for jury determination on the issues of strict liability, negligence and proximate cause. See Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(10).
The actions taken by the court in response to the jury's handwritten questions cannot fairly be characterized as the directing of a verdict. Both the court and counsel for the parties recognized immediately upon receiving the questions that the jury had probably resolved the question of liability in favor of Alcoa, had completed its deliberations on liability issues, and was ready to proceed to the damage special verdicts but did not know if that was necessary. The following dialogue is instructive:
THE COURT: The court upon considering such questions believes that the situation in the jury room with respect to answers which have been made to the Interrogatories is not altogether clear; however, it appears ... that the Jury has answered "yes" to only one of these Interrogatories.... If that be the case, there would be no finding of liability on the part of the Defendant in this case.
It is the Court's suggestion that in response to the last two questions ... that the Court inquire of the Jury as to whether or not they have answered each of the first four Interrogatories, and, if so, indicate to the Court their answers to such Interrogatories. When such information is received from the Jury, the Court would then proceed further with respect to the direction as to further deliberations or answers to subsequent interrogatories.
[McCONNELLS' ATTORNEY]: [T]here is only one thing we can do at this point, that is, directly ask them if they have answered the four questions, and see what the answers are because we are at an impasse. If one is going to be "yes", it is over with, and it appears that is already what they have answered. But beginning at that point there is nothing else we can do. There is no sense having them in there on "hold". We have got to find out what they did with the first four questions.
[ALCOA'S ATTORNEY]: Defendants are in agreement with that procedure.
(Emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stover v. Lakeland Square Owners Ass'n
...of the law and the court's refusal to give Lakeland's instruction furnished no ground for new trial. See McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of America, 367 N.W.2d 245, 248 (Iowa 1985); Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(3). The assignment of error is without III. Motions for Directed Verdict and Judgment N.O.V.: L......
-
Cpt v. John Deere Health Care
...as "[a] verdict that gives a written finding on each issue, leaving the application of law to the judge"); see also McConnell v. ALCOA, 367 N.W.2d 245, 246 n. 1 (Iowa 1985) (distinguishing between special verdicts and special interrogatories accompanying general verdicts). The answers by th......
-
Kelly v. Ethicon, Inc.
...Whitacre v. Energy Panel Structures, Inc., No. C09-3051-MWB, 2009 WL 3345733, at *1 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 13, 2009); McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 367 N.W.2d 245, 246 (Iowa 1985). Indeed, in some cases, the plaintiff merely abandons their gross negligence claim at the summary judgment stage. ......
-
Mumm v. Jennie Edmundson Mem'l Hosp.
...the sound discretion of the trial justice" (quoting State v. Pignolet , 465 A.2d 176, 184 (R.I. 1983) )); McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of Am. , 367 N.W.2d 245, 250 (Iowa 1985) ("The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McConnells’ objection to the form of its responses to the ju......