Title VI: Alternative Dispute Resolution and Trial · Last amended July 1, 2016 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 gives a trial court two tools for getting more than a bare verdict out of a civil jury — a special verdict answering fact questions one at a time, or a general verdict paired with written questions — and tells the court what to do when a jury's answers and its verdict do not line up.
(1)In general. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact. The court may do so by:
(A)submitting written questions that may be answered by a categorical or other brief response;
(B)submitting written forms of the special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or
(C)using any other method that the court considers appropriate.
(2)Instructions. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to make its findings on each submitted issue.
(3)Issues not submitted. A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the jury unless, before the jury retires, the party demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict.
(b)General verdict with answers to written questions.
(1)In general. The court may submit to the jury forms for a general verdict, together with written questions on one or more issues of fact that the jury must decide. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to render a general verdict and answer the questions in writing, and must direct the jury to do both.
(2)Verdict and answers consistent. When the general verdict and the answers are consistent, the court must direct the entry of an appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers. Answers Inconsistent with the Verdict. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may:
(A)direct the entry of an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;
(B)direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or
(C)order a new trial.
(3)Answers inconsistent with each other and the verdict. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is also inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment must not be entered; instead, the court must direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict, or must order a new trial.
Amendment History
(Adopted March 1, 2016, effective July 1, 2016.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49 lets a trial court steer a jury toward a more structured verdict than a simple finding for one side or the other. Under subsection (a), the court can require a special verdict: written answers to specific factual questions, submitted as short-answer questions, prepared forms of possible findings, or any other format the court thinks works. The court still has to instruct the jury on what each question requires. If a party wants a factual issue decided by the jury but the court's special-verdict questions leave it out, that party has to say so and demand its inclusion before the jury retires — otherwise the right to a jury finding on that issue is waived, and the judge decides it instead, or is deemed to have decided it consistently with the jury's verdict if the judge never rules on it separately.
Subsection (b) covers a different combination: a general verdict — the ordinary finding for the plaintiff or the defendant — paired with written interrogatories on specific factual issues. When the general verdict and the written answers agree, the court enters judgment on them. When the answers agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court has three options: enter judgment on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider both, or order a new trial. And when the jury's answers conflict with each other as well as with the general verdict, the court cannot enter judgment at all — it must send the jury back to deliberate further or start over with a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a special verdict and a general verdict with interrogatories?
A special verdict asks the jury only to answer specific factual questions, with no overall finding for either side — the judge applies the law to those findings. A general verdict with interrogatories asks the jury to reach an ordinary verdict for one party or the other and answer written factual questions alongside it.
What happens if the jury's written answers contradict its general verdict?
If the answers agree with each other but not with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment based on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial. The choice is the court's, based on which result makes sense given the inconsistency.
What if the jury's answers to different questions contradict each other, not just the verdict?
Then the court cannot enter judgment on any of it. Rule 49(b)(3) requires the court to send the jury back for further deliberation or order a new trial instead.
Can I lose my right to a jury decision on an issue if the special verdict form leaves it out?
Yes, unless you demand before the jury retires that the issue be submitted to it. Without that demand, the trial court can decide the issue itself, and if the court makes no explicit finding, the law treats it as having ruled consistently with the jury's special verdict.
Who decides whether to use a special verdict or interrogatories with a general verdict?
The trial court. Rule 49 gives the judge discretion to choose the format that best organizes the jury's fact-finding for a particular case, and the parties do not have a right to insist on one approach over the other.
Source & verification. Rule text
are reproduced verbatim from the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Idaho. Last verified July 14, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:idaho special verdict formgeneral verdict with interrogatories idahoinconsistent jury verdict answers idahoidaho civil rule 49 jury verdict