C.r.c.p. 49

As amended through Rule Change 2024(18), effective October 2, 2024

Rule 49 - Special Verdicts and Interrogatories

(a) Special Verdicts. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made upon the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.

(b) General Verdict Accompanied by Answer to Interrogatories. The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact, the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other or one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment shall not be entered, but the court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.

C.r.c.p. 49

Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, "Trials: Rules 38-53 ", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 571 (1951). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). II. Special Verdicts. Where plaintiffs fail to establish their allegations that defendants are guilty of gross negligence or of willful or wanton misconduct, but there is sufficient evidence of simple negligence, it requires submission of the case to the jury. Hurst v. Crowtero Boating Club, Inc., 31 Colo. App. 9, 496 P.2d 1054 (1972). It is not error, in a will contest, for the court to submit the case to the jury on special interrogatories. In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264, 195 P.2d 725 (1948). Where no protest is made to the submission to the jury of a question any objections thereto are waived. Westing v. Marlatt, 124 Colo. 355, 238 P.2d 193 (1951). Trial court's rejection of party's proposed jury instructions is not in error so long as the jury instructions submitted by the trial court sufficiently and properly cover the subjects contained in the proposed instructions. Staley v. Sagel, 841 P.2d 379 (Colo. App. 1992). Appellate court has duty to attempt to reconcile jury's answers to special verdicts if it is at all possible, and where there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers consistent, they must be resolved that way. City of Aurora v. Loveless, 639 P.2d 1061 (Colo. 1981); Williamson v. Sch. District No. 2, 695 P.2d 1173 (Colo. App. 1984). III. General Verdict. The refusal to submit the interrogatories to the jury is not an abuse of discretion by the court. Lambrecht v. Archibald, 119 Colo. 356, 203 P.2d 897 (1949). Under this rule the submission of interrogatories is discretionary and not mandatory. Lambrecht v. Archibald, 119 Colo. 356, 203 P.2d 897 (1949). Use of special verdicts and interrogatories is discretionary. The use of special verdicts or interrogatories accompanying general verdicts, unless specifically required, is discretionary with the trial court. Felder v. Union Pac. R.R., 660 P.2d 911 (Colo. App. 1982). Jury verdicts will not be reversed for inconsistency if the record discloses any evidentiary basis to support the verdicts. Alzado v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 752 P.2d 544 (Colo. 1988).

For waiver of trial by jury, see C.R.C.P. 38(e); for entry of judgment, see C.R.C.P. 58.