## Facts

- Survivors of passengers killed in a mid-air collision brought wrongful-death actions against United Air Lines, Inc.
- Liability had effectively been resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, leaving only damages for trial.
- Several damages trials were transferred by stipulation to the Southern District of California and tried sequentially to one jury.
- In the Nollenberger damages trial, the jury returned (1) a general verdict (lump-sum damages) and (2) answers to 11 special interrogatories addressing components relevant to damages calculations (e.g., life expectancy and economic-loss inputs).
- The general verdict awarded approximately $114,655.
- Plaintiffs asserted the special interrogatory answers were internally consistent but could not be reconciled with the general verdict total, and sought post-verdict relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b).

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s answers to the special interrogatories were consistent with one another but inconsistent with the general verdict on total damages.
2. Whether Rule 49(b) permits a court, after the jury has returned a general verdict and answered special interrogatories and has been discharged, to submit additional interrogatories to that jury.
3. If the general verdict is inconsistent with consistent interrogatory answers, what remedy Rule 49(b) requires: judgment on the answers, resubmission to the jury, or a new trial.

## Decision

- The court held the special interrogatory answers were consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict.
- The court held that, under Rule 49(b), the special interrogatory answers control over an inconsistent general verdict.
- The court denied the request to submit additional interrogatories after the verdict, finding Rule 49(b) provides no such authority once the jury has been discharged.
- Applying Rule 49(b), the court computed damages from the interrogatory answers and entered judgment in the amount dictated by those answers (approximately $171,702), rather than the general verdict amount.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b), when a general verdict and special interrogatory answers are returned and the answers are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict, the interrogatory answers control.
- When such an inconsistency exists, Rule 49(b) authorizes the court to enter judgment consistent with the answers, send the jury back for further consideration, or order a new trial.
- Rule 49(b) does not authorize a court to submit new or additional interrogatories after the jury has returned its verdict and been discharged.
- Where interrogatory answers supply a coherent factual basis for damages but conflict with the lump-sum general verdict, the court may calculate the judgment amount from the special findings and enter judgment accordingly.

## Conclusion

The court applied Rule 49(b) to set aside an irreconcilable general damages verdict and enter judgment based on the jury’s consistent special interrogatory findings, while rejecting any post-discharge supplementation of interrogatories as beyond the court’s authority.


Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 734 (S.D. Cal. 1963)