## Facts

- Richard Gaisor was arrested by Donald R. Jackson and other officers and suffered serious injuries during the arrest.
- Gaisor later died from those injuries.
- Eileen Whitlock, as administrator of Gaisor’s estate, sued the officers for state-law and federal-law claims arising from the arrest, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The case was tried to a jury using special interrogatories (a special verdict form) rather than a general verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict for Whitlock in the amount of $29,700.
- The jury found the defendants liable for battery under state law.
- The jury did not find the defendants liable for violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable force.
- After the verdict, Whitlock moved for additur or, alternatively, a new trial, arguing that the jury’s answers to the special interrogatories were inconsistent and that the damages were inadequate.
- The defendants argued that Whitlock waived any challenge to inconsistent answers because she did not object before the jury was discharged.

## Issues

1. In a case submitted to the jury on special interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a), does a party waive a claim of inconsistency by failing to object before the jury is discharged?
2. Were the jury’s special-verdict answers so inconsistent (or the damages so inadequate) that the court was required to grant additur or order a new trial?

## Decision

- The court treated the submission as a Rule 49(a) special verdict because the jury answered written questions without returning a general verdict.
- The court rejected the defendants’ waiver argument, reasoning that the waiver rule commonly applied to Rule 49(b) (general verdict with interrogatories) did not bar Whitlock’s post-discharge challenge in this Rule 49(a) setting.
- The court held that the jury’s answers could be reconciled on a reasonable view of the record: conduct could constitute a state-law battery while still not amounting to an unreasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment standard submitted to the jury.
- The court declined to disturb the verdict and denied Whitlock’s request for additur or, alternatively, a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 49(a) (special verdict) differs from Rule 49(b) (general verdict with interrogatories), and waiver doctrines associated with Rule 49(b) do not automatically control when the jury returns only special findings under Rule 49(a).
- When reviewing claimed inconsistencies in special-verdict answers, a court must attempt to harmonize the answers if there is any reasonable way to do so consistent with the evidence and the instructions.
- A finding of battery under state law is not necessarily inconsistent with a finding of no Fourth Amendment unreasonable-force violation because the elements and thresholds for liability may differ.
- Post-verdict relief based on inconsistency or inadequacy of damages is not granted where the special findings can be read consistently and the verdict is supported by a rational view of the evidence.

## Conclusion

Whitlock challenged the jury’s special-verdict answers after obtaining a $29,700 award for battery but losing on the Fourth Amendment theory, arguing that the findings were inconsistent and the damages insufficient. The court held that, in a Rule 49(a) special-verdict case, Whitlock’s failure to object before the jury was discharged did not automatically waive the inconsistency argument, but the court reconciled the jury’s answers as consistent with differing state and federal standards and therefore denied additur and a new trial.


Whitlock v. Jackson, 754 F. Supp. 1394 (1991)