(a) Special verdicts. The Court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event, the Court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer, or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The Court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the Court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the Court may make such finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.
Rule 49.Special verdicts and interrogatories
Part VI: Trials · Last amended January 1, 1991 · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 lets the Court require a jury to return either a special verdict of written findings on each fact issue, or a general verdict paired with written interrogatories, and sets what happens next depending on whether the jury's answers line up with each other and with the general verdict.
Full Text of Rule 49
(b) General verdict accompanied by answer to interrogatories. The Court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The Court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the Court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the Court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment shall not be entered, but the Court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.
Amendment History
Amended, effective Jan. 1, 1965; Jan. 1, 1991.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49(a) lets the Court require the jury to return only a special verdict — a written finding on each issue of fact — using written questions, written forms for the possible findings, or any other method the Court thinks best for submitting the issues. The Court has to give whatever explanation and instruction the jury needs to make those findings. If the Court's submission leaves out an issue the pleadings or evidence raised, each party waives a jury trial on that omitted issue unless a party demands its submission before the jury retires. Left undemanded, the Court can make its own finding on the omitted issue, or, if it doesn't, gets deemed to have found in line with the judgment on the special verdict.
Rule 49(b) lets the Court instead submit a general verdict together with written interrogatories on one or more fact issues necessary to that verdict, giving the jury the explanation it needs to answer both. What happens after the jury returns its answers depends on how they line up: harmonious answers and a general verdict lead straight to judgment under Rule 58. If the answers are consistent with each other but one conflicts with the general verdict, the Court can enter judgment based on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial. And if the answers conflict with each other — with one or more also conflicting with the general verdict — judgment can't be entered at all; the Court has to send the jury back or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between a special verdict and a general verdict with interrogatories?
Rule 49(a) has the jury return only written findings on each fact issue, with no general verdict at all. Rule 49(b) has the jury return a general verdict plus written answers to specific interrogatories on issues the verdict depends on.
What happens if the jury's interrogatory answers contradict its general verdict?
Rule 49(b) lets the Court enter judgment on the answers instead of the verdict if the answers are consistent with each other, or send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial.
What if the jury's answers to the interrogatories conflict with each other, and one also conflicts with the general verdict?
Rule 49(b) doesn't allow judgment to be entered in that situation. The Court must return the jury for further consideration or order a new trial.
What happens if the Court's special-verdict questions leave out an issue raised by the pleadings or evidence?
Rule 49(a) treats that as a waiver of the jury-trial right on the omitted issue, unless a party demands its submission to the jury before it retires. Without that demand, the Court can make its own finding, or is deemed to have found in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.
Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
Delaware Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Court, adopted by the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: special verdict delaware civil trialgeneral verdict with interrogatoriesinconsistent jury answers delawarerule 49 special verdictsjury interrogatories conflict with verdict