During a civil jury trial regarding a contract dispute, the jury delivers a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff but fails to allocate damages properly as instructed. Upon review, one juror admits to misinterpreting the instructions but confirms that the verdict reflects the group’s intent. Which of the following legal remedies is the most appropriate action for the court in this scenario?
Vacate the judgment and enter a judgment as a matter of law for the defendant.
Direct the jury to reconvene and clarify the verdict to ensure proper damage allocation.
Order a new trial due to the defective verdict.
Recalculate the damages based on the judge’s own assessment and enter a judgment accordingly.
The correct answer is appropriate because a flawed or ambiguous verdict typically allows the court to request the jury to either clarify or deliberate further before dismissing them. Courts aim to resolve any issues using the same jury to avoid unnecessary retrials and promote judicial efficiency. The incorrect answers either misstate the rules governing jury verdicts or propose remedies that are not ideal given the circumstances.
Calling back the same jury to clarify their decision is often the best and most efficient course of action before considering more severe remedies like setting aside the verdict.
Ordering a new trial should generally be a last resort, especially if the issue can be remedied by further jury deliberation.
Vacating the judgment outright without exploring alternatives disregards procedural practices designed to address jury mistakes within the same deliberation process.
Recalculating damages based on the judge's own assessment violates the fundamental role of the jury in determining factual issues, such as damages, in a jury trial.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean to direct the jury to reconvene and clarify the verdict?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why would a court generally avoid ordering a new trial in this scenario?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role does the jury play in determining damages in a trial?