MBE Rules · Civil Procedure
Special Verdicts and Interrogatories
FRCP 49
The rule
The court may use special verdicts or a general verdict with written questions; inconsistent answers trigger reconciliation, resubmission, or new trial under prescribed rules.
In plain English
A special verdict requires the jury to make specific findings on factual issues rather than just deciding who wins. If the jury's answers to these questions are inconsistent, the court may ask them to clarify, send the case back for further deliberation, or order a new trial.
Worked example
In a negligence case, the jury is asked to determine whether the defendant was negligent and whether that negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. They find that the defendant was negligent but also state that the injuries were not caused by that negligence. The court will likely require the jury to reconcile these answers or may order a new trial.
Memory hook
Special verdicts demand clarity; inconsistent answers lead to court chaos.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where the jury's answers seem contradictory, but students might overlook the need for reconciliation or a new trial. This can lead to incorrect conclusions about the case outcome.
How examiners test it
Questions often present a fact pattern with jury findings that are inconsistent, requiring students to identify the implications of those findings and the court's options for resolution.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.