Hastings v. Turner

WATTS, J. This appeal concerns the Circuit Court for Worcester County’s award of damages to appellee, Catherine Lynn Turner, following a civil jury trial in which the jury returned a verdict that appellant, Direse Helen Hastings, had negligently caused an automobile accident between the parties but appellee had sustained no injuries. Appellant noted an appeal raising two which we as follows: 1 I. Whether the circuit court improperly awarded appellee damages where the portion of the verdict concerning damages had not been announced in open court?

II

Whether the inclusion of damages as part of the verdict rendered the verdict irreconcilably inconsistent? We answer the first question in the affirmative and, as a result, we need not address the second question. Accordingly, ⁴¹⁶ we shall vacate the judgment and remand for the entry of judgment consistent with the verdict as announced in open court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 4, 2008, appellant and appellee were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Worcester County, Maryland.

On July 6, 2009, appellee filed suit against appellant, alleging negligence, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On August 26, 2009, appellant answered the complaint, denying the allegations and alleging negligence on the part of appellee. On September 27, 2010, and September 28, 2010, a jury trial was held in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. At the close of the evidence in the case, the circuit court instructed the jury as to the use of the verdict sheet in the negligence cause of action as follows: [The] verdict form [for the automobile accident], question one says, has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the [appellant] was negligent?

There is a place for yes and a place for no. You make your decision. Then there is a little instruction after that that says, if you have answered no to question one, please terminate your deliberations.... The reason for that is, if there is no negligence then there is no cause of action.

If your answer is yes, then you go on to number two. Number two is, has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle and that such negligence on her part proximately caused or contributed to the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence? Again, there is a place for yes or no. You are then, again, instructed, if you’ve answered yes to question two, please terminate.

Because if, in fact, she is also negligent, then she can’t recover. You are further instructed if your answer is no, then you do continue on with the verdict form. And you ⁴¹⁷ go to question number three. And question three is, has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] sustained injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence?

Again, yes or no. Obviously, if it’s no, then you have completed your deliberations on that part of the case. If yes, then you go on to number four, which are the damages. And then it’s delineated, what damages has [appellee] proven by a preponderance of the evidence?

A, is medical expenses incurred in the past. There is a place to fill in whatever amount, if any, that you determine and so forth. B is loss of income. C is non-economic damages.

And D is property damage to the taxicab. The verdict sheet contained several sets of instructions. The first paragraph of the verdict sheet read as follows: It is your duty to return a verdict in the form of written answers to the written questions which are being submitted by the Court to you. Your answers will constitute your verdict.

Each answer is to be written in the space provided after each question. Before making each answer, all of you must agree upon it. It is your duty to answer each of these questions in accordance with the evidence in the case and the Court’s instructions. Questions 1, 2, and 3, with intermittent instructions, appeared on the verdict sheet as follows. 1.

Has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellant] was negligent? _YES _NO IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION NO. 1, PLEASE TERMINATE YOUR DELIBERATIONS AND NOTIFY THE BAILIFF. IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “YES” TO QUESTION NO. 1, PLEASE RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 2. 2. Has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle and that such negligence on her part proximately ⁴¹⁸ caused or contributed to the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence? _YES _NO IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “YES” TO QUESTION NO. 2, PLEASE TERMINATE YOUR DELIBERATIONS AND NOTIFY THE BAILIFF. IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “YES” TO QUESTION NO. 1 AND IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION NO. 2, PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION NO. 3. 3.

Has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] sustained injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence? _YES _NO IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION NO. 3, PLEASE TERMINATE YOUR DELIBERATIONS AND NOTIFY THE BAILIFF. IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “YES” TO QUESTION NO. 3 PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION NO. 4. (Emphasis in original). During deliberations, the jury completed the verdict sheet by checking “Yes” under Question No. 1, “No” under Question No. 2, and “No” under Question No. 3.

Despite the trial judge’s instructions and the directions on the verdict sheet to terminate deliberations if the answer to Question No. 3 was “No,” the jury answered Question No. 4. The jury’s purported response appeared on the verdict sheet as follows: 4. What damages has [appellee] proven by a preponderance of the evidence? a. Medical expenses incurred in the past: $325.00 b.

Loss of income reasonably probable to have been incurred in the past: $18,000 c. Non-economic damages including pain and suffering: $ 0 ⁴¹⁹ d. Property damage to the taxi cab: $2,820 [ 2 ] The verdict sheet was signed by the jury foreperson. At the conclusion of deliberations, the jury returned its verdict as to the negligence claim in open court as follows: THE CLERK: Mr. Foreperson, what say you, has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellant] was negligent?

THE FORE[PERSON]: Yes. THE CLERK: Has it been proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle, and that such negligence on her part proximately caused are [sic] contributed to the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence? THE FOREPERSON]: No. THE CLERK: Has it [been] proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [appellee] sustained injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident referred to in the evidence? THE FOREPERSON]: No. After the announcement of the verdict as to Question Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the courtroom clerk did not inquire about a response to Question No. 4, regarding damages.

Appellant neither objected nor excepted to the verdict. Neither party requested that the jury be polled pursuant Maryland Rule 2-522(b), and the circuit court did not conduct a poll on its own initiative. 3 The jury was hearkened to the verdict affirmatively as to Question Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on the verdict concerning negligence, and was dismissed by the trial judge. Following a short recess, the trial judge advised counsel that although the jury had answered “no” to Question No. 3, it had nonetheless answered Question No. 4 on the verdict sheet. The trial judge advised that “the best thing to do is to enroll this as their ⁴²⁰ verdict form,” and gave the parties thirty days to file memoranda addressing the apparent discrepancy.

On October 8, 2010, appellant submitted a Motion to Revise Judgment arguing that the judgment must conform with the verdict as “set forth and hearkened to by the jury in open court.” On October 28, 2010, appellee filed a Response to the Motion to Revise Judgment and a Memorandum in Support of the Monetary Judgment as Written and Signed by the Jury. On December 7, 2010, the circuit court issued an order denying the Motion to Revise, and, without explanation, awarding damages to appellee in the amount of $21,145. Appellant noted a timely appeal. DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in awarding damages because the verdict as to damages was not returned in open court, as required by Maryland Rule 2-522(b), and the jury was not hearkened to the verdict on damages.

Appellant argues that, because the damages award was not read in open court, she had no opportunity to poll the jury as to unanimity, contrary to Maryland Rule 2-522. Appellee responds that the circuit court properly reconciled the jury’s verdict by awarding the damages specified on the verdict form. The return of verdicts in civil cases in Maryland is controlled by Maryland Rule 2-522, which provides in pertinent part: (b) Verdict. The verdict of a jury shall be unanimous unless the parties stipulate at any time that a verdict or a finding of a stated majority shall be taken as the verdict or finding of the jury.

The verdict shall be returned in open court. On request of a party or on the court’s own initiative, the jury shall be polled before it is discharged. If the poll discloses that the jury, or stated majority, has not concurred in the verdict, the court may direct the jury to retire for further deliberation or may discharge the jury. ⁴²¹ (c) Verdict containing written findings. The court may require a jury to return a verdict in the form of written findings upon specific issues.

For that purpose, the court may use any method of submitting the issues and requiring written findings as it deems appropriate, including the submission of written questions susceptible of brief answers or of written forms of the several special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence. The court shall instruct the jury as may be necessary to enable it to make its findings upon each issue____ (Emphasis added). The written findings permitted under Maryland Rule 2-522(c) may be in the form of a verdict sheet, “[t]he purpose of [which] is to facilitate the deliberations of the jury.” Rochkind v. Finch, 196 Md.App. 195, 210 , 9 A.3d 88 (2010) (citing Ogundipe v. State, 191 Md.App. 370, 385 , 991 A.2d 200 (2010), aff'd, 424 Md. 58 , 33 A.3d 984 (2011)). The Court of Appeals discussed the finality of verdicts in Nails v. S & R, Inc., 334 Md. 398, 412 , 639 A.2d 660 (1994), holding that: [I]n a civil case, after a jury has rendered an initial verdict, the trial judge ordinarily may ask the jury to amend, clarify or supplement the verdict in order to resolve an ambiguity, inconsistency, incompleteness, or similar problem with the initial verdict, up until the jury has been discharged and has left the court room.

(Emphasis added). Dismissing the jury, therefore, renders the verdict final as it was returned. Maryland appellate courts have not directly considered what constitutes the proper return of a jury verdict in open court, in a civil trial, under Maryland Rule 2-522. The Court of Appeals has, however, examined an identical requirement in Maryland Rule 4-327, the criminal procedure corollary to Maryland Rule 2-522.

Maryland Rule 4-327 provides, in pertinent part: (a) Return. The verdict of a jury shall be unanimous and shall be returned in open court. ⁴²² (e) Poll of jury. On request of a party or on the court’s own initiative, the jury shall be polled after it has returned a verdict and before it is discharged. If the sworn jurors do not unanimously concur in the verdict, the court may direct the jury to retire for further deliberation, or may discharge the jury if satisfied that a unanimous verdict cannot be reached.

The language of each rule mirrors the other in providing: (1) that the verdict of the jury be unanimous (Maryland Rule 2-522 allows the verdict to be unanimous or agreed upon by a predetermined majority, whereas Maryland Rule 4-327 requires that the verdict be, in all cases, unanimous); (2) that a jury verdict “shall be returned in open court”; and (3) that the jury shall be polled either at the request of a party or on the trial court’s initiative to ensure that the jury members concur in the verdict. In Jones v. State, 384 Md. 669, 672 , 866 A.2d 151 (2005), the Court of Appeals interpreted the meaning of the “return in open court” requirement of Maryland Rule 4-327(a). In that case, the jury considered four criminal charges against Jones, and found him guilty of all four charges on a verdict sheet which had been provided by the trial court and was signed by the foreperson. Id. at 677 , 866 A.2d 151 .

The foreperson read the verdict in open court, however, only as to three of the four counts, and the jury was subsequently polled and hearkened to only those three counts. Id. at 675-77 , 866 A.2d 151 . The jury was then dismissed. Id. at 677 , 866 A.2d 151 .

Despite the jury’s failure to announce a verdict on the fourth count aloud in open court, the trial court sentenced Jones on all four counts that appeared on the verdict sheet. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “the trial court could not legally impose a sentence for a verdict that was not orally conveyed in open court and to which the jury was neither polled nor hearkened.” Jones, 384 Md. at 678 , 866 A.2d 151 . In Jones, 384 Md. at 682 , 866 A.2d 151 , in analyzing the “return in open court” requirement of Maryland Rule 4-327, the Court of Appeals stated that “[throughout the Rule’s ⁴²³ many incarnations there has been no comment on what procedures are necessary for a jury to ‘return’ a verdict.” The Court placed the requirement in context by examining how verdicts had been returned historically, specifically looking at the description of the return of the verdict in Givens v. State, 76 Md. 485 , 25 A. 689 (1893).

Jones, 384 Md. at 680-81 , 866 A.2d 151 . Based on this review, the Court described “the ‘return’ of a verdict by a jury [as] comprised of three distinct procedures, each fulfilling a specific purpose.” Id. at 682 , 866 A.2d 151 . The first step occurs “[a]fter the jury return[s] to the jury box to deliver its