Court Error – Special Verdict

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: The Estate of Irene A. Pelt, et al. v. CRL Services, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 2017AP982

Officials: Brennan, P.J., Kessler and Brash, JJ.

Focus: Court Error – Special Verdict

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action brought by the Estate of Irene Pelt (the Estate). The Estate alleged that Pelt died as a result of injuries incurred while a resident at Northfield Manor, a memory-care facility (Northfield). The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in sua sponte amending the special verdict to reflect only one potential date of injury: Sunday, July 8, 2012. The Estate contends that the trial court’s amendment likely confused the jury because the Estate presented evidence of multiple alleged incidents of neglect occurring on multiple days, specifically, both Saturday, July 7, 2012, and Sunday, July 8, 2012.

The trial court specifically instructed the jury that it was only to consider whether the injury occurred on July 8th. Thus, the trial court essentially disregarded all of the evidence that Pelt could have sustained her leg fracture on July 7, 2012. During the postverdict hearing the trial court candidly admitted that it, not the jury, decided that the evidence pointing to July 7th was not “substantial[ly] credible.” Neither party asked the trial court to limit the date of consideration to July 8th. In fact, both parties presented their cases relative to events over the entire weekend and the Estate objected to limiting the date of consideration to July 8th.

We acknowledge that a trial court has wide discretion in framing a special verdict, see Runjo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 197 Wis. 2d 594, 602, 541 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1995); however, we may reverse a trial court’s decision to formulate a special verdict that “does not fairly present the material issues of fact to the jury for determination.” See Z.E. v. State, 163 Wis. 2d 270, 276, 471 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1991). The trial court’s discretion does not extend to invading the province of the jury by determining evidence credibility and resolving evidentiary conflicts meant for a jury.

Because the jury’s determination of both negligence and damages was constrained by its ability to only consider July 8th as the date of Pelt’s injury, we conclude that a new trial on the question of both liability and damages is required. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court and remand for a new trial. Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.