Inconsistent, Inadequate, Unbalanced, and Compromised: Breaking Up with Flawed Verdicts

Sometimes jury verdicts don’t make sense and can be challenged by the losing party. There are four common types of irregular verdicts: compromises, inconsistent, inadequate, or against the weight of the evidence. Inconsistent verdicts are when the jury makes two simultaneous determinations that can’t be reconciled, and it’s important for the legal system to address these issues. In some legal cases, the jury may give conflicting verdicts, which means their decisions don’t match up. This often happens in product liability cases, like when someone sues a company for making a dangerous product and for not being careful enough. For example, in one case, the jury said a ladder wasn’t dangerous, but also said the company was careless and caused someone’s death. This doesn’t make sense. Another example involved a bank being accused of accepting fake checks. The jury said the bank did something wrong, but also said they did nothing wrong. This also doesn’t make sense. In both cases, the decisions didn’t match up, so the cases had to be tried again. It’s important to notice if a jury’s decision doesn’t make sense. If you don’t speak up about it before the jury is let go, then it’s too late to fix it. But if you do catch it in time, the judge can send the jury back to talk it over. So, it’s a good idea to think about the different ways the jury might make inconsistent decisions before the trial even starts. That way, if it does happen, you’re ready to do something about it. In simple terms, if the jury doesn’t give enough money in a verdict for a person who was hurt or lost money, it’s called an inadequate verdict. This can happen when the jury gives no money for some things, but does give money for others. It’s different from an inconsistent verdict, which happens when the jury makes conflicting decisions about who is responsible for the injury. If there’s an inadequate verdict, the person who was hurt can ask for a new trial or for the jury to reconsider the amount of money they should get. This is usually decided by the judge, and the amount of money can be changed. But if the jury didn’t give any money for something that was proven to be true, the decision might be reversed on appeal and the person who was hurt can get a new trial. Compromise verdicts are when the jury can’t agree and the final decision doesn’t seem fair. In some cases, this means there has to be a new trial on everything, not just damages. It’s hard to prove that a decision was a compromise, but if liability is debated a lot and the verdict is too low, it might be considered a compromise. It doesn’t have to be an even split on who’s at fault for it to be a compromise. The Fifth District has made a strong decision to always give a new trial if the jury can’t agree on a verdict, even if it’s expensive. They believe it’s more important to be fair than to save money. If the judge thinks the jury’s decision doesn’t make sense, they can grant a new trial, but it’s not easy to convince the judge. The jury system is based on having regular people make decisions, so it’s tricky when judges can change their minds. Overall, it’s up to the judge to decide if there should be a new trial, and it’s hard to change their mind once they decide. Sometimes, the court may overturn a verdict if there was a mistake in the law or if there isn’t enough evidence to support it. But not all mistakes lead to a new trial. The court prefers to save time and trust the jury’s decision. So, sometimes you just have to accept the verdict you get.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/inconsistent-inadequate-unbalanced-and-compromised-breaking-up-with-flawed-verdicts/