| VERDICTS
Q. Is there anything to prevent the case from reaching the jury
after each side has finished presenting its case?
A. Yes. Before turning the case over to the jury, the judge will
consider either side's motion to
"direct a verdict" in its favor. A directed verdict removes
the need for the jury to determine
whether the defendant is liable, but such a ruling is only appropriate
when the court is persuaded that no reasonable juror could reach any verdict
other than the one it is being directed to reach. The court may grant,
deny, or, more likely, "reserve" (postpone) ruling on such a
motion until after the jury has rendered a verdict. If the jury rules
against the party who requested the directed verdict, the judge can still
overrule the jury's decision by granting a motion for "judgment notwithstanding
the verdict." That way, if the losing party appeals, there seldom
would be any need to order a new trial because the appellate court would
have the option of upholding the judge's ruling or reinstating the jury's
original verdict.
Q. What happens if the court declines to direct a verdict?
A. Each side will be given the opportunity to address the jury
directly and to summarize what he or she believes was established during
the trial. At the conclusion of these talks, called "closing statements,"
the judge will consider each side's suggestions on how to instruct the
jury regarding the proper way it should go about reaching a verdict. The
judge's instructions will specify the issues the jury must decide and
the law it must apply to the facts that were developed in the case.
In the usual case the jury will be asked to render a "general"
verdict and conclude which side won on an all-or-nothing basis. Less commonly,
the judge may ask for a "special" verdict, which requires the
jury to enter separate written findings on each of several issues.
Q. What else must the verdict contain?
A. If the jury concludes that one of the parties is liable to
the other, it must go on to decide what remedy is owed the party who was
wronged. In the ordinary personal injury suit, this remedy will take the
form of money "damages" which the jury will direct the defendant
to pay the prevailing plaintiff. The judge may decide to separate this
portion of the trial from the liability portion. In appropriate cases,
such a "bifurcated" trial can simplify the issues by saving
the jury from having to listen to instructions and arguments about the
proper damages until after it has determined whether the plaintiff is
entitled to any damages at all.
The various formulae juries may use in calculating damages seek to give
effect to the
overriding goal of putting prevailing plaintiffs back in the financial
position they would have been
in if they hadn't been wronged in the first place. It is, of course, more
difficult to calculate the
proper award when the defendant's wrongful act caused more than out-of-pocket
expenses: How much money does it take to compensate one for pain, suffering,
or loss of life's enjoyment?
In unusual circumstances, where the defendant's behavior is thought to
be especially
outrageous, the plaintiff may also ask the jury to direct the defendant
to pay "punitive damages" in addition to compensatory damages.
Punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant and to deter others
from engaging in like conduct.
|
