Rule 49.Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2011 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 lets the court send a jury out with a special verdict of written findings on each fact issue, or with a general verdict paired with written questions, and tells the court what to do when the jury's answers don't line up with each other or with the verdict.
(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 susceptible of a categorical or other brief answer;
(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 approve an appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers.
(3)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)approve, for entry under Rule 58, 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.
(c)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 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.
Explanatory Note
Rule 49 was amended, effective March 1, 1990; March 1, 2011. Rule 49 is derived from Fed.R.Civ.P. 49. Subdivision (a) was amended, effective March 1, 1990. The amendment is technical in nature and no substantive change is intended. Rule 49 was amended, effective March 1, 2011, in response to the December 1, 2007, revision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49(a) lets a judge skip the general verdict entirely and ask the jury only for a special verdict — a written finding on each disputed fact. The court can get there with categorical written questions, written forms tailored to the pleadings and evidence, or any other method the court considers appropriate, and it must give the jury whatever instructions are needed to make each finding. If a fact issue raised by the pleadings or evidence never makes it onto the verdict form, a party who wants the jury to decide it must say so before the jury retires; stay silent, and the party gives up the jury on that issue, leaving the judge free to find the fact — and if the judge doesn't, the finding is treated as whatever is consistent with the judgment already entered on the special verdict.
Rule 49(b) covers a different setup: a general verdict alongside written questions on one or more fact issues, with the jury instructed to return both. When the general verdict and the written answers agree, the court approves judgment on them under Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with one another but clash with the general verdict, the judge has three options: enter judgment on the answers despite the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider both, or order a new trial.
Rule 49(c) addresses the harder case — the jury's written answers contradict each other, and at least one also contradicts the general verdict. There, the court cannot enter judgment on what it has. It must send the jury back to work through the inconsistency or start over with a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between a special verdict and a general verdict under Rule 49?
A special verdict asks the jury only for written findings on each disputed fact, built through categorical questions, tailored forms, or any other method the court considers appropriate. A general verdict, addressed in Rule 49(b), instead asks the jury for its overall verdict along with written answers to one or more separate fact questions.
What happens if a fact issue raised at trial never gets put to the jury?
Under Rule 49(a)(3), a party waives the right to have the jury decide that issue unless the party demands its submission before the jury retires. Without that demand, the court may find the fact itself, and if the court makes no finding, the issue is treated as decided consistently with the judgment on the special verdict.
What can a judge do when the jury's written answers conflict with its general verdict?
If the answers agree with each other but not with the general verdict, Rule 49(b)(3) lets the court enter judgment on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial.
What if the jury's answers to the written questions conflict with each other as well as with the verdict?
Rule 49(c) bars the court from entering judgment at all in that situation. The court must direct the jury to keep deliberating on the answers and verdict, or order a new trial.
Does the court have to use a specific form to get a special verdict from the jury?
No. Rule 49(a)(1) lists written questions and tailored written forms as options but also allows the court to use any other method it considers appropriate for obtaining the jury's special findings.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Explanatory Note are
reproduced verbatim from the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Supreme Court of North Dakota. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:nd special verdict rulejury interrogatories north dakotainconsistent verdict answers ndgeneral verdict written questions north dakotand rule 49 jury findings