The jury in any case in which it renders a general verdict may be required by the court, and must be so required on the request of any party to the action, to find specially upon any particular questions of fact, to be stated to it in writing, which questions of fact shall be submitted to the attorneys of the adverse party before argument to the jury is commenced. The instructions shall be such as will enable the jury to answer the interrogatories and return the verdict. If both are harmonious, the court shall order the appropriate judgment. If the answers are consistent with each other, but any is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may order judgment appropriate to the answers notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial, or send the jury back for further deliberation. If the answers are inconsistent with each other, and any is inconsistent with the verdict, the court shall not order judgment, but either send the jury back or order a new trial.
Rule 1.934.Interrogatories
Division IX: Trial and Judgment · Last amended February 15, 2002 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 1.934 lets any party demand written interrogatories to accompany a general verdict, and tells the court what to do when the jury's answers and its general verdict do or do not line up.
Full Text of Rule 1.934
Plain-English Summary
Rule 1.934 lets a party pair a general verdict with written interrogatories on particular questions of fact. The court can require this on its own, and must require it if any party to the action requests it. The questions have to be given to the jury in writing and shared with the adverse party's attorneys before closing argument begins, and the instructions must let the jury both answer the interrogatories and return its general verdict.
What happens next depends on how the pieces fit together. If the answers and the general verdict are harmonious, the court orders the appropriate judgment. If the answers are consistent with each other but one of them conflicts with the general verdict, the court has three options: enter judgment appropriate to the answers despite the verdict, order a new trial, or send the jury back for more deliberation. But if the answers conflict with each other, and any one of them also conflicts with the verdict, the court cannot enter judgment at all — it must either send the jury back or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a party require the jury to answer specific factual questions along with its general verdict?
Yes. Rule 1.934 requires the court to submit written interrogatories to the jury on request of any party, even in a case where the jury renders a general verdict.
What happens if the jury's answers to interrogatories match its general verdict?
Rule 1.934 directs the court to order the appropriate judgment when the answers and the general verdict are harmonious.
What if the interrogatory answers are consistent with each other but conflict with the general verdict?
Rule 1.934 gives the court three options: enter judgment appropriate to the answers notwithstanding the verdict, order a new trial, or send the jury back for further deliberation.
What if the jury's answers to different interrogatories contradict each other?
If the answers are inconsistent with each other, and any one is also inconsistent with the verdict, Rule 1.934 bars the court from entering judgment and requires it to either send the jury back or order a new trial.
When do the parties learn what interrogatories will be submitted to the jury?
Rule 1.934 requires that the questions of fact be submitted to the attorneys of the adverse party before argument to the jury is commenced.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Comment are
reproduced verbatim from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Iowa Supreme Court. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: iowa jury interrogatories ruleinconsistent verdict and interrogatory answers iowaspecial interrogatories with general verdict iowaiowa jury interrogatory instructions