“The verdict of a jury is either general or special. A general verdict is that by which they pronounce generally upon all or any of the issues, either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant; a special verdict is that by which the jury find the facts only, leaving the judgment to the Court. The special verdict must present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and those conclusions of fact must be so presented as that nothing shall remain to the Court but to draw from them conclusions of law.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 624.)

General Verdict

A general verdict implies a finding in favor of the prevailing party of every fact essential to the support of his action or defense. (Price v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1918) 179 Cal. 326, 328 [176 P. 452]; Tremble v. Tuman (1917) 175 Cal. 696, 698 [167 P. 142].) “It is true that in determining whether or not a verdict is supported by the evidence, we must assume that the jury accepted the view most favorable to the respondent.” (Clement v. State Reclamation Board (1950) 35 Cal. 2d 628, 643-644 [220 P.2d 897].) It has therefore been said that “[w]here there are several counts or causes of action, a general verdict will stand if the evidence supports it on any one sufficient count.” (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, op. cit., p. 3078.)

The disadvantage of a general verdict (particularly for the losing party) is that a general verdict may conceal the jury’s misunderstanding or even disregard of the judge’s instructions. (Wegner, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Ev. (TRG, 2019) ¶ 17:5.) While a general verdict form leaves the parties guessing as to just what was proven to the jury, a special verdict form or jury interrogatories provides more insight. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 903-904.)

The “general verdict rule” relied on by the Court of Appeal provides that where several counts are tried, a general verdict will be sustained if any one count is supported by substantial evidence and is unaffected by error, despite possible insufficiency of evidence as to the remaining counts. (McCloud v. Roy Riegels Chemicals (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 928, 935-936 [97 Cal. Rptr. 910].) The rule is based on the assumption “that the jury found on the cause of action or theory which was supported by substantial evidence and as to which there was no error,” an assumption that may be proven incorrect by the special verdict or response to special interrogatories. (Id. at p. 936.)

Special Verdict

“In all cases the court may direct the jury to find a special verdict in writing, upon all, or any of the issues, and in all cases may instruct them, if they render a general verdict, to find upon particular questions of fact, to be stated in writing, and may direct a written finding thereon.... Where a special finding of facts is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court must give judgment accordingly.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 625.) “The special verdict or finding must be filed with the clerk and entered upon the minutes.  Where a special finding of facts is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court must give judgment accordingly.” (Id.)

Weighing the Verdicts

In determining the existence and effect of inconsistencies between general and special verdicts under section 625, the court is governed by well settled principles:

“[T]he general verdict will stand unless the facts found by the jury in answer to special interrogatories are so clearly antagonistic to it as to be absolutely irreconcilable, the conflict being such as to be beyond the possibility of being removed by any evidence admissible under the issues, so that both the general verdict and special findings cannot stand.”

(Law v. Northern Assur. Co. (1913) 165 Cal. 394, 407.) “A special finding is inconsistent with the general verdict only when, as a matter of law, the special finding when taken by itself would authorize a judgment different from that which the general verdict will permit.” (Id. at p. 407.)

Since the special verdict or finding provided for in section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure is “primarily and principally for the purpose of determining whether the general verdict is or is not against law” (Plyer v. Pacific etc. Cement Co. (1907) 152 Cal. 125, 135 [92 P. 56]), no presumption is to be indulged in favor of answers to special interrogatories and every reasonable intendment in favor of the general verdict is indulged. (Bate v. Marsteller (1965) 232 Cal. App. 2d 605, 615 [43 Cal. Rptr. 149].)

The general and special verdicts must be beyond possibility of reconciliation under any possible application of the evidence and instructions; if any conclusions could be drawn thereunder which would explain the apparent conflict, the jury will be deemed to have drawn them. (Lowen v. Finnila (1940) 15 Cal. 2d 502, 504 [102 P.2d 520]; Hudgins v. Standard Oil Co. (1933) 136 Cal. App. 44, 50 [28 P.2d 433].) Moreover, a special verdict can control the general only by its inherent force and clarity; hence, it has been held that if inconsistent special findings are rendered, one of which supports, and the other of which tends to negate, the general verdict, the latter will stand. (Koskela v. Albion Lumber Co. (1914) 25 Cal. App. 12, 27 [142 P. 851].)

“[I]f nine identical jurors agree that a party is negligent and that such negligence is the proximate cause of the other party's injuries, special verdicts apportioning damages are valid so long as they command the votes of any nine jurors.” (Collin v. Connecticut Valley Arms, Inc. (1982) 137 Cal. App.3d 815, 819; Juarez v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 759, 768.)