(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 a 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
Adopted December 1, 1959 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 lets the court require a jury to return either a special verdict answering specific factual questions instead of a general verdict, or a general verdict paired with written interrogatories, and it sets out how the court must resolve any conflict between a general verdict and the jury's interrogatory answers.
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 court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or 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, the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial.
Advisory Committee’s Notes & Reporter’s Notes
Reporter's Notes — December 1, 1959
This rule is the same as Federal Rule 49. It is recognized in the Maine decisions that a special verdict or a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories may be compelled. Salter v. Greenwood, 112 Me. 548, 92 A. 786 (1915); Russell v. Brown, 56 Me. 94 (1868). In the latter case the court said, "It may, perhaps, be doubted whether they do not as often tend to embarrass as to elucidate a case, and the right should be carefully and sparingly exercised." This advice has been heeded, and very few such cases are found in the reports.
The advice may have been based upon certain common law weaknesses, particularly the requirement that the special verdict must include a finding on every material issue of fact. Many special verdicts were vitiated because material findings were omitted. Rule 49(a) seeks to correct this weakness by providing that if the court omits an issue in submitting the case to the jury, each party waives his jury right as to such issue unless he objects before the jury retires. The court may make its own finding on such an issue and thus complete the necessary factual basis for a judgment. Furthermore, if it fails to do so, the appellate court will treat it as though the finding had been made which would support the judgment entered.
Rule 49(b) offers a means of checking the jury's application of the law to the facts and may in some cases render immaterial an error in instructions which would nullify a general verdict. For instance, if there are two issues in the case and the jury's answer to each is fatal to the plaintiff's claim, an error in instructions as to one of the issues would not compel a reversal.
It seems desirable to make both of these devices available for such use as the court deems it wise to make of them. Last reviewed and edited June 24, 2014
Plain-English Summary
Instead of one overall verdict, the court can require the jury to answer specific written questions on each issue of fact — through written questions calling for brief or categorical answers, prepared special-finding forms, or some other method the court considers most appropriate — and must give the jury whatever explanation and instruction it needs to make those findings. If the court's list of questions leaves out an issue raised by the pleadings or the evidence, each party waives its right to a jury trial on that omitted issue unless it demands submission before the jury retires; without that demand, the court can make its own finding on the issue, or is deemed to have found it consistently with the judgment on the rest of the special verdict.
The court can instead ask the jury for a general verdict along with written interrogatories on one or more fact issues necessary to that verdict, giving whatever explanation is needed for the jury to answer both. When the general verdict and the interrogatory answers agree, the court enters judgment accordingly. When the answers agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment consistent with the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial. When the answers conflict with each other, and at least one also conflicts with the general verdict, the court can't enter judgment at all — it must return the jury for further deliberation or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a special verdict, and how does it differ from a general verdict?
A special verdict has the jury answer specific written questions on each fact issue instead of returning one overall verdict; the court then applies the law to those findings itself.
What happens if the court omits an issue of fact from a special verdict?
Each party waives its right to a jury trial on that issue unless it demands submission before the jury retires; otherwise the court can make its own finding, or is deemed to have found consistently with the judgment.
What happens if a jury's interrogatory answers conflict with its general verdict?
If the answers agree with each other but not the verdict, the court can enter judgment on the answers, send the jury back for more deliberation, or order a new trial; if the answers also conflict with each other, the court can't enter judgment and must return the jury for further deliberation or order a new trial.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee’s Notes / Reporter’s
Notes are reproduced verbatim from the official Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Me. R. Civ. P. 49), prescribed by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (4 M.R.S. § 8, the Rules Enabling Act). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: special verdict Mainejury interrogatoriesinconsistent jury verdict