Specificity and Juror Agreement in Civil Cases

Abstract

Imagine a product liability case in which the plaintiff has advanced evidence supporting two kinds of product defects: a manufacturing defect and a design defect. Six jurors believe a manufacturing defect has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, but do not believe the design defect has been proven. The other six jurors believe that only the design defect has been sufficiently proven. If each juror were to vote solely on the existence of any product defect, the jury would return a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff. Given a general verdict format, jurors probably will return a verdict for the plaintiff, unless they question whether their disagreement on the specifics invalidates that verdict. Given a specific verdict format asking separately about the design and manufacturing defects, the jurors will probably return a verdict for the defendant, unless, given that they all agree that the plaintiff should recover, they collude to show some agreement where none existed. Thus, whether a specific or general verdict form is submitted probably makes a difference in the verdict rendered. Even more troubling is the fact that the basic question arising from this situation has not been addressed by the presiding judge: Must the jurors specifically agree on which product defect existed? Although this scenario seems likely to occur in product liability cases, the question of specificity in a jury's agreement is not limited to such cases. The problem can potentially arise in any case in which the plaintiff alleges multiple sets of facts that would allow her to recover from the defendant.! For example, a plaintiff could allege that the defendant committed various negligent acts, where proof of any one of the acts alleged would allow her to recover.2 This Comment focuses on