## Facts

- Cliff Wheeler, a milk delivery worker, fell while making a delivery on premises owned/occupied by Gerald A. Huston and Carl D. Huston and sued for negligence.
- Wheeler sought general damages and special damages totaling $9,120.25 ($6,000 lost wages; $3,120.25 medical expenses).
- Defendants denied liability and injury, asserted Wheeler’s comparative fault, and disputed the claimed lost wages amount.
- The case was submitted on a special verdict form under Oregon’s comparative fault statute, asking for fault percentages and a single figure for “total money damages.”
- The jury’s first verdict found Wheeler 45% at fault and defendants 55% at fault, and set “total money damages” at $9,120.25 (equal to the claimed specials).
- The trial judge questioned the foreperson, who indicated the amount reflected medical expenses and lost wages.
- Over defendants’ objection, the court reinstructed the jury that it could not award special damages without awarding general damages and sent the jury back.
- The jury returned a second verdict with the same fault allocation but increased “total money damages” to $20,000; judgment was entered on the second verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to accept the jury’s first special verdict and by reinstructing that special damages could not be awarded without general damages, resulting in a higher second verdict.
2. Whether the Oregon Constitution barred the trial judge’s inquiry into the jury’s damages breakdown (issue not decided).

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed.
- The first verdict was legally sufficient and should have been received and used to enter judgment after reducing damages for plaintiff’s comparative fault.
- The trial court committed reversible error by rejecting the first verdict and reinstructing the jury that special damages could not be awarded without general damages.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment on the first verdict, with the appropriate comparative-fault reduction.

## Legal Principles

- A special verdict asking only for “total money damages” (without separating general and special damages) is permissible; a legally sufficient, internally consistent verdict must be accepted.
- Oregon law does not require a jury to award general damages as a prerequisite to awarding special damages.
- A trial court may not reject or reshape a damages verdict based on disagreement with the jury’s damages composition when the verdict conforms to the instructions and is supported by the record.
- The constitutionality of post-verdict judicial inquiry into the jury’s internal allocation of damages need not be reached when the case can be resolved on narrower grounds.

## Conclusion

The court held that the jury’s initial lump-sum damages verdict was valid even though it matched the claimed special damages, and that the trial judge’s reinstruction improperly induced a higher verdict; judgment had to be entered on the first verdict subject to comparative-fault reduction.


Wheeler v. Huston, 288 Or. 467, 605 P.2d 1339 (Or. 1980)