Overview

The verdict form is the document the jury fills out to deliver their decision. How the questions are framed can shape the outcome of your case.

Key takeaway
Verdict forms are the documents jurors complete to deliver their decision. Special verdict forms ask specific factual questions about liability, causation, and damages. They also allocate comparative fault percentages. Under Proposition 51, each defendant pays only their proportionate share of noneconomic damages but remains jointly liable for economic damages.

General vs. Special Verdicts

General Verdicts (CCP 624)

A general verdict is a simple finding by the jury in favor of one party or the other, with a total damages amount if the finding is for the plaintiff. Under CCP section 624, a general verdict is a finding for the plaintiff with a lump-sum damages award, or a finding for the defendant.

Advantages of general verdicts for plaintiffs:
  • Simple and easy for the jury to complete
  • The jury is not required to separate damages into categories, potentially resulting in higher total awards
  • Less risk of inconsistent verdicts
  • Fewer opportunities for the defense to challenge the verdict on technical grounds
Disadvantages of general verdicts for plaintiffs:
  • The lump sum does not separate economic from noneconomic damages, which can create Proposition 51 issues with multiple defendants
  • Less transparency in the jury's reasoning
  • Harder to defend on appeal because the basis for the award is unclear

Special Verdicts (CCP 625)

A special verdict requires the jury to answer specific factual questions. Under CCP section 625, a special verdict is a finding of the facts on which the court applies the law to determine the judgment. In PI cases, the special verdict form typically asks the jury to make findings on:

  1. Whether the defendant was negligent
  2. Whether the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm
  3. The percentage of fault attributable to each party
  4. The amount of past economic damages
  5. The amount of future economic damages
  6. The amount of past noneconomic damages
  7. The amount of future noneconomic damages
Advantages of special verdicts for plaintiffs:
  • Separates economic and noneconomic damages, which is required when Proposition 51 applies to multiple defendants
  • Creates a detailed record of the jury's findings, which can be useful on appeal
  • Forces the jury to consider each category of damages separately, potentially increasing the total award
  • Provides clarity on the basis for the verdict
Disadvantages of special verdicts for plaintiffs:
  • Greater risk of inconsistent or incomplete verdicts
  • More complex for the jury, increasing the chance of confusion or error
  • Provides the defense with more targets for post-trial challenges
Key Takeaway: In most California PI cases, special verdicts are the norm -- particularly in cases involving multiple defendants, comparative fault, or Proposition 51 issues. While general verdicts are simpler, the practical realities of modern PI litigation usually require special verdict forms. Focus your energy on drafting a special verdict form that is clear, complete, and strategically favorable.

Special Verdict Forms for PI Cases

Standard Structure

A typical PI special verdict form follows this structure:

Part 1: Liability

  • Was [Defendant] negligent? (Yes/No)
  • Was [Defendant]'s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to [Plaintiff]? (Yes/No)
If the answer to either question is "No," the jury stops and returns a defense verdict.

Part 2: Comparative Fault (if applicable)

  • Was [Plaintiff] negligent? (Yes/No)
  • If yes, was [Plaintiff]'s negligence a substantial factor in causing [Plaintiff]'s harm? (Yes/No)
  • If both parties were negligent and each party's negligence was a substantial factor, assign a percentage of fault to each party (total must equal 100%):
  • [Plaintiff]: ____%
  • [Defendant]: ____%

Part 3: Damages

  • Past economic damages (medical expenses, lost earnings, etc.): $____
  • Future economic damages (future medical expenses, future lost earnings, etc.): $____
  • Past noneconomic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.): $____
  • Future noneconomic damages: $____

Drafting Tips

  1. Use clear, simple language: The jury must understand each question without legal training
  2. Provide clear instructions for conditional questions: "If you answered 'No' to Question 1, stop here and sign the verdict form"
  3. Use the plaintiff's name, not "Plaintiff": Personalizing the verdict form keeps the plaintiff human in the jury's eyes
  4. Separate damages categories clearly: Each category should be on a separate line with adequate space for the dollar amount
  5. Include a signature and date line for the presiding juror
Practice Tip: Propose your verdict form early and fight for your version. The verdict form you submit shapes how the jury deliberates. If the defense proposes a verdict form with confusing conditional logic or unnecessary subcategories, object that it is confusing and propose a cleaner alternative. Many judges will adopt the clearer form.

Comparative Fault Allocation

California's Pure Comparative Negligence System

Under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, California follows pure comparative negligence. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but even a highly negligent plaintiff can recover something. The jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party, and the percentages must total 100%.

Verdict Form Implications

The comparative fault question must:

  1. Ask whether the plaintiff was negligent (not assumed)
  2. Ask whether the plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm
  3. Require the jury to assign specific percentages of fault
  4. Clearly state that the percentages must total 100%
  5. Apply only to the parties before the court (unless non-party fault is at issue)

Non-Party Fault (Phantom Defendants)

In some cases, the defense seeks to allocate fault to non-parties (settled defendants, immune parties, or unidentified tortfeasors). Whether non-party fault may be included on the verdict form is a complex legal issue that depends on the specific case. Generally:

  • Joint tortfeasors who have settled: Under CCP 877 and Proposition 51, the remaining defendant may argue that the settled party bears a percentage of fault
  • Unidentified third parties: The defense must present evidence of the third party's negligence sufficient to warrant a jury instruction and verdict form question
Phantom Defendant Strategy
Defense attorneys commonly try to allocate fault to non-parties to reduce the defendant's share. Object to phantom defendant questions on the verdict form unless there is sufficient evidence of the non-party's negligence. If the court allows it, argue in closing that the defendant should not be able to shift blame to someone who is not in the courtroom to defend themselves.
Dealing with a legal issue?

Do not wait. The clock is ticking on your case.

Evidence disappears, deadlines pass, and memories fade. The sooner you talk to an attorney, the stronger your case will be.

Call us · (424) 353-4624 Text us

Multiple Defendants

Joint and Several Liability vs. Proposition 51

California's approach to multiple defendant liability is governed by Proposition 51 (Civil Code section 1431-1431.5):

  • Economic damages: Each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's economic damages. This means any defendant can be required to pay 100% of the economic damages, regardless of their percentage of fault.
  • Noneconomic damages: Each defendant is severally liable only for their proportionate share of noneconomic damages. A defendant who is 20% at fault pays only 20% of noneconomic damages.

Verdict Form Requirements for Multiple Defendants

When there are multiple defendants, the verdict form must:

  1. Ask liability questions separately for each defendant
  2. Require the jury to assign a percentage of fault to each party found negligent (all parties, including the plaintiff, must total 100%)
  3. Separate economic and noneconomic damages (required by Proposition 51)
  4. NOT ask the jury to do the Proposition 51 math -- the court applies the percentages to the damages after the verdict

Example: Two-Defendant Verdict Form Structure


QUESTION 1: Was Defendant A negligent?
Yes ___ No ___
QUESTION 2: Was Defendant A's negligence a substantial factor
in causing harm to [Plaintiff]?
Yes ___ No ___
QUESTION 3: Was Defendant B negligent?
Yes ___ No ___
QUESTION 4: Was Defendant B's negligence a substantial factor
in causing harm to [Plaintiff]?
Yes ___ No ___
[Comparative fault questions for Plaintiff if applicable]
QUESTION 5: Assign a percentage of fault to each party whose
negligence was a substantial factor:
[Plaintiff]:     ____%
Defendant A:     ____%
Defendant B:     ____%
TOTAL:           100%
QUESTION 6: Damages
Past economic damages:      $________
Future economic damages:    $________
Past noneconomic damages:   $________
Future noneconomic damages: $________
Key Takeaway: In multi-defendant cases, the separation of economic and noneconomic damages on the verdict form is not optional -- it is required by Proposition 51. Failure to separate these categories creates a verdict that cannot be properly applied under the law and may necessitate a new trial on damages.

Economic vs. Noneconomic Damages Separation (Proposition 51)

Why Separation Is Required

Proposition 51 (Civil Code 1431.2) provides that each defendant is liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault. To apply this rule, the verdict must separately state economic and noneconomic damages.

Defining the Categories

Economic damages include:
  • Past and future medical expenses
  • Past and future lost earnings / earning capacity
  • Past and future household services
  • Property damage
  • Other quantifiable financial losses
Noneconomic damages include:
  • Pain and suffering (past and future)
  • Emotional distress
  • Loss of enjoyment of life
  • Disfigurement
  • Physical impairment
  • Inconvenience
  • Loss of consortium (in a derivative claim)

Strategic Considerations

  • Maximize economic damages: Because defendants are jointly and severally liable for economic damages, a larger economic award ensures full recovery even if one defendant is judgment-proof
  • Argue noneconomic damages aggressively: Even though noneconomic damages are several only, a large noneconomic award ensures meaningful recovery from each defendant
  • Be precise about categories: If a damages item falls on the border between economic and noneconomic, argue for the characterization most favorable to your client
Practice Tip: In closing argument, walk the jury through each damages line on the verdict form and suggest specific dollar amounts for each. Jurors need numbers to anchor their deliberations. If you do not provide specific amounts, the defense's lower numbers may fill the vacuum. Be bold but credible -- your suggested numbers should be supported by the evidence.

Common Verdict Form Errors

Errors to Watch For

  1. Missing conditional instructions: The form fails to tell the jury to stop if they find no liability, resulting in confused damages findings after a defense verdict
  2. Percentages that do not total 100%: The form does not require or enforce the 100% total for comparative fault allocation
  3. Failure to separate economic and noneconomic damages: In multi-defendant cases, this creates an unenforceable verdict under Proposition 51
  4. Ambiguous questions: Questions that can be interpreted multiple ways lead to verdicts that are unclear or inconsistent
  5. Missing categories of damages: Failing to include a line item for a damages category supported by the evidence (e.g., future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity)
  6. Unnecessary subcategories: Excessive detail (e.g., separate lines for each type of medical expense) can confuse the jury and result in lower awards
  7. Confusing conditional logic: Multiple layers of "if yes, go to question X; if no, skip to question Y" create opportunities for error
  8. Inconsistency with instructions: The verdict form must be consistent with the jury instructions. If the instructions define negligence using CACI 400 language, the verdict form should use the same terminology.

How Errors Arise

Verdict form errors most commonly occur when:

  • The parties stipulate to a form without careful review
  • The court provides a standard form that does not fit the specific case
  • Last-minute changes during the instruction conference introduce errors
  • Complex multi-defendant or multi-cause-of-action cases are compressed into a single form
Review the Final Version
Always request to review the final typed version of the verdict form before it is given to the jury. Errors introduced during typing -- misspellings, omitted questions, wrong party names -- can create serious problems. This is your last line of defense against verdict form errors.

Preserving Error on Verdict Forms

Object at the Instruction Conference

Under CCP 647, you must object to the verdict form at or before the instruction conference. Failure to object waives the issue on appeal except in cases of fundamental error.

What to Put on the Record

When objecting to a verdict form:

  1. Identify the specific problem (missing question, ambiguous language, incorrect conditional logic)
  2. State the legal basis for your objection (CCP 624-625, Proposition 51, applicable case law)
  3. Propose a specific alternative -- do not just object; offer your preferred language
  4. Obtain a ruling -- make sure the court rules on your objection on the record

Post-Verdict Preservation

If the verdict form produces an error (inconsistent answers, missing findings), you must:

  1. Raise the issue before the jury is discharged
  2. Request the court send the jury back to correct the error (see Inconsistent Verdicts below)
  3. If the court refuses, object on the record and note the specific inconsistency
  4. Raise the issue in post-trial motions (see Post-Trial Motions)
Need a California injury attorney?

We know the law. We fight for you.

We have recovered millions for California injury victims. Free consultation. No fee unless we win.

Call us · (424) 353-4624 Text us

Inconsistent Verdicts

What Is an Inconsistent Verdict?

An inconsistent verdict occurs when the jury's answers on the special verdict form are logically irreconcilable. Common examples:

  • The jury finds the defendant negligent but awards zero damages
  • The jury awards future medical expenses but zero future noneconomic damages
  • The jury finds no comparative fault but reduces damages
  • The comparative fault percentages do not total 100%
  • The jury finds liability against one defendant but not a co-defendant when the same negligent act is at issue

The Court's Options

When the court identifies an inconsistent verdict, it has several options:

  1. Return the verdict to the jury with instructions to resolve the inconsistency (CCP 619)
  2. Enter judgment on the special findings if the inconsistency can be resolved by operation of law
  3. Order a new trial if the inconsistency cannot be resolved

Responding to Inconsistent Verdicts

As plaintiff's counsel:

  1. Identify the inconsistency immediately -- do not let the jury be discharged before raising it
  2. Request that the court return the verdict to the jury with clarifying instructions
  3. Argue for the interpretation most favorable to your client if the inconsistency is ambiguous
  4. Object if the court proposes to enter judgment against you based on the inconsistency
Practice Tip: Review the verdict form as soon as the clerk reads it -- do not wait until after polling. If you spot an inconsistency, immediately request a sidebar before the jury is polled or discharged. Once the jury is discharged, your options narrow dramatically. Have a copy of the blank verdict form at counsel table so you can compare it to the completed form in real time.

Polling the Jury

The Right to Poll

Under CCP section 618, any party has the right to have the jury polled after a verdict is returned. Polling requires each juror to individually affirm or deny that the verdict is their verdict.

When to Poll

Always poll the jury. There is no downside to polling and a potential upside -- if a juror does not affirm the verdict, the court must send the jury back to deliberate further.

Procedure

  1. After the verdict is read, request polling
  2. The clerk asks each juror individually: "Is this your verdict?"
  3. If at least 9 of 12 jurors affirm (in a civil case), the verdict stands
  4. If fewer than 9 affirm, the court orders further deliberation or declares a mistrial

Strategic Considerations

  • After a plaintiff's verdict: Poll to ensure the verdict is solid and all concurring jurors affirm. A juror who was pressured into agreement may recant during polling.
  • After a defense verdict or low verdict: Poll because a dissenting juror may expose fractures in the verdict, supporting a new trial motion.
Observing the Jury During Polling
Watch the jurors' faces and body language during polling. A juror who hesitates, looks away, or pauses before answering may have been pressured or may not truly agree with the verdict. Note these observations -- they may be relevant to post-trial motions regarding juror misconduct.

Sample Verdict Form Structures

Single Defendant, Negligence Only (No Comparative Fault)


SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
1. Was [Defendant] negligent?
Yes ___ No ___
If your answer is "No," sign and return this form.
If your answer is "Yes," proceed to Question 2.
2. Was [Defendant]'s negligence a substantial factor in
causing harm to [Plaintiff]?
Yes ___ No ___
If your answer is "No," sign and return this form.
If your answer is "Yes," proceed to Question 3.
3. What are [Plaintiff]'s damages?
a. Past economic damages:        $__________
b. Future economic damages:       $__________
c. Past noneconomic damages:      $__________
d. Future noneconomic damages:    $__________
TOTAL DAMAGES:                    $__________
Dated: ____________
Presiding Juror: _______________________

Single Defendant with Comparative Fault

The form adds questions asking whether the plaintiff was negligent, whether the plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor, and fault allocation percentages before the damages questions.

Multiple Defendants with Proposition 51

The form asks liability questions for each defendant separately, includes fault allocation among all negligent parties (including plaintiff if applicable), and requires separate economic and noneconomic damages findings. The court then applies the Proposition 51 formula post-verdict.

Wrongful Death

The form follows the standard liability and fault structure, then asks the jury to determine damages for each statutory beneficiary separately, with economic and noneconomic components for each.

Verdict Form Checklist

Drafting Phase

  • [ ] Determine whether general or special verdict is appropriate (special is almost always required)
  • [ ] Draft proposed verdict form with clear, simple language
  • [ ] Include all liability questions for each defendant
  • [ ] Include comparative fault questions (if supported by evidence)
  • [ ] Separate economic and noneconomic damages (required for multiple defendants under Proposition 51)
  • [ ] Include all damages categories supported by the evidence
  • [ ] Add clear conditional instructions ("If No, stop here and sign")
  • [ ] Use the plaintiff's name, not "Plaintiff"
  • [ ] Include a signature line and date for the presiding juror
  • [ ] Ensure consistency between the verdict form and the jury instructions

Instruction Conference

  • [ ] Submit proposed verdict form with other pretrial documents
  • [ ] Review defense proposed verdict form and prepare objections
  • [ ] Argue for your preferred form at the instruction conference
  • [ ] Object to confusing, incomplete, or legally incorrect defense proposals
  • [ ] Propose specific alternative language for disputed questions
  • [ ] Ensure all objections and rulings are on the record

At Verdict

  • [ ] Have a blank copy of the verdict form at counsel table
  • [ ] Review the completed form immediately when read by the clerk
  • [ ] Identify any inconsistencies before polling or discharge
  • [ ] Request polling of the jury
  • [ ] If inconsistencies exist, raise them at sidebar before discharge
  • [ ] Request the jury be sent back to correct any inconsistencies
  • [ ] Preserve all objections on the record

Post-Verdict

  • [ ] Confirm the verdict form is filed with the clerk
  • [ ] Calculate the judgment amount applying comparative fault and Proposition 51
  • [ ] Identify any grounds for post-trial motions related to the verdict form
  • [ ] File post-trial motions within applicable deadlines (see Post-Trial Motions)
See also: Jury Instructions | Closing Arguments | Trial Practice | Post-Trial Motions

Cross-References

Common Questions

What is a special verdict form?

A special verdict form asks the jury to answer specific factual questions rather than simply finding for the plaintiff or defendant. For example, the form may ask whether the defendant was negligent, whether that negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm, and what damages amount to award for each category. This is the most common form in California PI cases.

What is comparative fault allocation?

If both sides share fault, the verdict form asks the jury to assign a percentage of fault to each party. Under California's pure comparative negligence system, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault but never eliminated. If you are found 30 percent at fault and your damages are one million dollars, you recover seven hundred thousand.

What is Proposition 51?

Proposition 51, also known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, limits each defendant's liability for noneconomic damages to their proportionate share of fault. A defendant who is 20 percent at fault pays only 20 percent of the noneconomic damages. However, each defendant remains jointly and severally liable for all economic damages.

What happens if the verdict is inconsistent?

If the jury returns a verdict with inconsistent answers, the court may send the jury back for further deliberation with instructions to resolve the inconsistency. If the inconsistency cannot be resolved, it may result in a mistrial. Your attorney should carefully review the verdict form before it goes to the jury to prevent inconsistency issues.

Our offices

Tarzana 18653 Ventura Blvd., Suite 361 Tarzana, CA 91356 Open in Maps →
Los Angeles 5411 S. Broadway, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Open in Maps →

Local Resources

  1. California Code of Civil Procedure § 624. General verdict form requirements.
  2. California Code of Civil Procedure § 625. Special verdict form requirements.
  3. California Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51). Several liability for noneconomic damages.
  4. Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377. Verdict form requirements for comparative fault allocation.
  5. Singh v. Southland Stone (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338. Inconsistent verdicts and court remedies.
  6. Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 482. Proposition 51 allocation in multi-defendant cases.