Presthus v. Western Mut. Ins. Co., 51663

• Decision Date: 08 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 51663,51663
• Citation: 135 N.W.2d 549,257 Iowa 1035
• Parties: Lawrence PRESTHUS, Appellee, v. WESTERN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 549

135 N.W.2d 549

257 Iowa 1035

Lawrence PRESTHUS, Appellee, v. WESTERN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 51663.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 8, 1965.

Linnan, Lynch & Straub, Algona, for appellant.

Winkel & Winkel, Algona, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

The sole question in this case arises from what the defendant thinks is an irreconcilable conflict between the general verdict of the jury and its answer to a special interrogatory. The general verdict was for the plaintiff, and the trial court refused to find such a conflict with the special verdict as to invalidate the general verdict. Judgment was entered on the general verdict, and the defendant appeals.

Conflicts and alleged conflicts between general verdicts and answers to special interrogatories, which have the effect of special verdicts, are not new. They have furnished a considerable field for appellate litigation in the past. Special interrogatories seem, at times, to be propounded for the purpose of determining whether the jury can justify its general verdict by showing that it fully understood what it was about in reaching it. The general verdict is the final result; the special verdict should properly go to ultimate facts necessarily found if the general verdict was correctly reached. Answers to special interrogatories may disclose that the general verdict is contrary to the facts found by the jury in its answers to the special interrogatories. They prevent verdicts based on nothing more substantial then prejudice, or sympathy, or indifference to or misunderstanding of the law laid down in the instructions, or to the facts actually proven.

I. It is well settled that when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the general and special verdicts the latter must prevail. Rule of Civil Procedure 206, 58 I.C.A. provides so far as pertinent: '* * * If the answers (to the special interrogatories) are consistent with each other, but any is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may order judgment appropriate to the answers notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial, or send the jury back for further deliberation. * * *'

There is a considerable discussion of general and special verdicts in Fischer v. Hawkeye Stages, 240 Iowa 1203, 1205-1208 inc., 37 N.W.2d 284, 286, 287. There cerain qualifications of the rule are thus stated: 'It is settled both in Iowa and by the authorities generally that all reasonable presumptions are in favor of the general verdict. Nothing is presumed in aid of the special finding. If the general verdict thus aided is not in irreconcilable conflict with the special finding the former must stand. The special finding controls only where the conflict between it and the general verdict is such as to be clearly beyond the possibility of reconciliation under any conceivable state of facts provable under the issues. Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337, 343-345, 92 N.W. 58, and citations.' Loc. cit. 240 Iowa 1206, 1207, 37 N.W.2d 286, 287.

II. The factual situation here is that the plaintiff owned a tractor which was covered by a collision insurance policy in which the defendant was the insurer. On January 5, 1963, the tractor was damaged by a collision with the trailer which it was pulling. A clause in the insuring policy provided: 'The company may pay for the loss in money, or repair the automobile * * *.' The defendant elected to repair, and took the tractor to the Hoft Truck & Trailer Service in Fort Dodge for that purpose. Nineteen days later is was returned to the plaintiff as fully repaired, but it is his contention that the repairs were not complete and he was compelled to expend considerable sums in remedying defects.

Plaintiff brought his action recover the additional sums he alleged he was compelled to pay for repairs which should have been made by the defendant and its agent. The jury returned its verdict for him in the sum of $2,300.00. The only controversy here arises from the submission of a special interrogatory to the jury at the time it was instructed, and its answer. The interrogatory was this: 'Was Hoft Truck & Trailer Service negligent in repairing plaintiff's truck?' The answer was 'No.'

This the defendant claims was an answer wholly irreconcilable with the general verdict. It raised the question by motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, or for a new trial. These motions were denied by the trial court, and defendant asserts...