420 P.3d 576
N.M.2018Background
- Charles Anthony Saenz (decedent) died in a construction-site fall; his spouse Virginia and three children sued Ranack Constructors for wrongful death and loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs (Virginia individually, as personal representative of the estate, and as next friend for the minor child; and two adult sons) submitted a modified wrongful-death jury instruction and drafted the special verdict form.
- Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 17 altered UJI 13-1830 by referring to recovery “on behalf of the estate” and by including both an express loss-of-consortium element and bracketed language telling jurors not to consider loss of society—creating conflicting language.
- The special verdict form listed separate damage lines for each individual plaintiff and a separate line for the Estate but did not break out elements of damages or explain allocation among claimants and the estate.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether the estate line included amounts awarded to individual claimants; the court answered that the estate line was separate. The jury returned awards to the individuals but $0 for the estate; plaintiffs did not object before the jury was discharged and later moved for a new trial arguing the $0 estate award lacked substantial evidentiary support.
- The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on estate damages; the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding plaintiffs waived their challenge by creating/maintaining ambiguity and failing to seek clarification or object before discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain a new trial on the ground that the jury’s $0 award to the estate was unsupported by substantial evidence | Saenz: a post-trial motion for new trial on insufficiency of evidence is proper; the jury deliberately or mistakenly failed to award estate damages and district court abused discretion by denying new trial | Ranack: plaintiffs created ambiguity in instructions/verdict form and waived any challenge by failing to object or seek clarification before jury discharge | Held: Plaintiffs waived the claim. Because plaintiffs contributed to an ambiguous verdict and did not seek clarification or object before dismissal, they cannot raise insufficient-evidence argument on appeal; district court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson Drilling, Inc. v. Romig, 736 P.2d 979 (N.M. 1987) (failure to object to verdict at return waives claims of ambiguity or inconsistency)
- Diversey Corp. v. Chem-Source Corp., 965 P.2d 332 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (party who stipulated to ambiguous verdict form and failed to object waived challenge)
- Ramos v. Rodriguez, 882 P.2d 1047 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (waiver rule applied where party failed to object to inadequate special verdict form before discharge)
- State ex rel. Valley Radiology, Inc. v. Gaughan, 640 S.E.2d 136 (W. Va. 2006) (distinguishing procedural defects in verdict form from substantive inadequacy of an unambiguous zero award)
- Kava v. American Honda Motor Co., 48 P.3d 1170 (Alaska 2002) (party may move for new trial on ground verdict is against weight of evidence even if post-discharge)
- Clay v. Choctaw Nation Care Ctr., LLC, 210 P.3d 855 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (new trial may be proper where zero award is inconsistent with uncontroverted evidence)
- Cooper v. Fultz, 812 S.W.2d 497 (Ky. 1991) (if jury deliberately awards zero, substantive challenge in new trial is allowed; different treatment when verdict is unambiguous)