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 direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict, and shall instruct it, as is necessary, to enable it to do so. If the general verdict and the answers are consistent, 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.
Rule 4:39-2.General verdict accompanied by answer to interrogatories
Current through June 18, 2026 · Last verified July 7, 2026
In one sentenceRule 4:39-2 lets the court pair a general jury verdict with written interrogatories on specific fact issues, and sets what happens when the interrogatory answers and the verdict agree, when they conflict with each other, or when both conflict with the general verdict.
Full Text of Rule 4:39-2
Amendment History
New Jersey publishes each rule’s amendment record in a “History” note beneath the rule. It is reproduced verbatim below; the “R.R.” citations refer to the former Revised Rules numbering the current rules replaced.
Source-R.R. 4:50-2.
Plain-English Summary
A hybrid approach sits between a general verdict and a full special verdict: the court submits ordinary general-verdict forms alongside written interrogatories on particular fact issues the verdict depends on, and instructs the jury to answer both.
What happens next depends on how the pieces line up. Consistent answers and verdict mean judgment enters on both together. Answers that agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict let the court enter judgment on the answers instead, send the jury back for more deliberation, or order a new trial. And answers that conflict with each other — with at least one also conflicting with the verdict — block judgment altogether; the court must send the jury back or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What if the jury's interrogatory answers conflict with its general verdict?
If the answers agree with each other but conflict with the verdict, the court may enter judgment on the answers, return the jury for further deliberation, or order a new trial.
What if the jury's own interrogatory answers conflict with each other?
The court cannot enter judgment. It must return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict, or order a new trial.
Source & verification. The rule text and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the
official New Jersey Rules of Court (N.J. Ct. R. 4:39-2). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey (N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, ¶ 3). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 7, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: jury interrogatoriesspecial interrogatoriesgeneral verdict