In one sentenceRule 49 lets the court ask a jury to answer specific written questions, either as a full special verdict or alongside a general verdict, instead of only issuing a general verdict.
aThe 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 require written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanations and instructions 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. Except as provided in Rule 49.01(b), neither the court nor counsel shall inform the jury of the effect of its answers on the outcome of the case.
bIn actions involving Minnesota Statutes, chapter 604 the court shall inform the jury of the effect of its answers to the comparative fault question and shall permit counsel to comment thereon, unless the court is of the opinion that doubtful or unresolved questions of law or complex issues of law or fact are involved which
may render such instruction or comment erroneous, misleading, or confusing to the jury.
49.02General 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.
Plain-English Summary
Instead of asking a jury to decide who wins, a court can require the jury to answer a series of specific written questions about the facts, known as a special verdict. Rule 49 lets the judge choose the format: written questions with short answers, written forms of possible findings, or any other method the court thinks is appropriate. The judge must give the jury the explanations and instructions needed to answer the questions. If the court’s questions leave out a factual issue that the pleadings or evidence raised, a party waives the right to have a jury decide that issue unless the party demands it before the jury retires; otherwise the judge decides that issue, or is treated as having decided it consistent with the verdict. Generally, neither the court nor the lawyers are allowed to tell the jury how its answers will affect the outcome of the case, with one significant exception.
That exception applies in cases governed by Minnesota’s comparative fault statute. In those cases, the court must tell the jury what effect its answers to the comparative fault question will have, and must let the lawyers comment on that during argument, unless the court believes doing so would confuse the jury because of unresolved or complicated legal questions.
The rule also allows a hybrid approach: a general verdict paired with written interrogatories on specific factual issues. When the general verdict and the answers to the interrogatories agree, the court enters judgment consistent with both. When the interrogatory answers are consistent with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the judge has options: enter judgment based on the answers instead of the general verdict, send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial. When the answers conflict with each other as well as with the general verdict, the court cannot enter judgment and must either send the jury back or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a general verdict and a special verdict in Minnesota?
A general verdict decides who wins, while a special verdict requires the jury to make written findings on each specific issue of fact, using whatever format of questions or forms the court chooses.
Can the jury be told how its answers will affect who wins the case?
Generally no, except in cases involving Minnesota’s comparative fault statute, where the court must explain the effect of the comparative fault answers and allow the lawyers to comment on it, unless doing so would confuse the jury.
What happens if the jury’s interrogatory answers do not match its general verdict?
If the answers are consistent with each other but one conflicts with the general verdict, the court may enter judgment on the answers, send the jury back for further deliberation, or order a new trial; if the answers conflict with each other too, the court cannot enter judgment and must send the jury back or order a new trial.
What if the court’s special verdict questions leave out an issue raised at trial?
A party waives the right to a jury decision on that omitted issue unless the party demands its submission before the jury retires, in which case the court may make its own finding, or is deemed to have made a finding consistent with the verdict if it does not.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 49). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 480.051). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source