49.01 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 answers 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 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.
Rule 49.Special Verdicts and Interrogatories
Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 lets a court require the jury to return only a special verdict answering specific factual questions instead of a general verdict, or lets the court combine a general verdict with written interrogatories on particular issues, and directs how the court must resolve inconsistencies between the two.
Full Text of Rule 49
49.02 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 and instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury 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 shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49.01 lets a court require the jury to decide the case entirely through a special verdict — written answers to specific factual questions — rather than a single general verdict for one side or the other. The court can frame those questions as short categorical answers, as fill-in-the-blank forms tailored to the pleadings and evidence, or through any other method it finds appropriate, and it must instruct the jury well enough to let jurors answer each question. If the court’s questions leave out an issue the pleadings or evidence raised, a party who wants that issue submitted to the jury has to say so before the jury retires — otherwise that party gives up the right to a jury decision on it, and the court either decides that issue itself or is treated as having decided it consistent with the jury’s special verdict.
Rule 49.02 offers a middle path: the jury returns a general verdict for one side, but also answers written interrogatories on particular factual issues that bear on that verdict. When the general verdict and the interrogatory answers line up, the court enters judgment consistent with both. When the interrogatory answers agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court has three options: enter judgment following the interrogatory answers instead of the general verdict, send the jury back to reconsider both, or order a new trial. When the interrogatory answers conflict with each other — regardless of whether they also conflict with the general verdict — the court cannot enter judgment at all; it must send the jury back or order a new trial.
Special verdicts and verdict-plus-interrogatory practice see more use in Tennessee than they once did, driven largely by cases that require the jury to allocate percentages of fault among multiple parties or that call for a separate liability finding before a jury considers damages or a defendant’s financial condition. Because a general verdict does not show how the jury resolved any particular factual dispute, a party who wants a clear, appeal-ready record on a specific issue has real reason to ask the court to use Rule 49’s tools rather than relying on a general verdict alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a special verdict and a general verdict?
A general verdict is a single outcome for one side or the other. A special verdict, under Rule 49.01, has the jury answer specific written factual questions instead, without deciding an overall winner directly.
What happens if the jury’s interrogatory answers conflict with its general verdict?
Under Rule 49.02, if the interrogatory answers agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment following the answers, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial. If the answers conflict with each other, the court cannot enter judgment at all and must send the jury back or order a new trial.
What happens if a special verdict form leaves out an issue raised by the evidence?
Under Rule 49.01, a party who wants that issue decided by the jury must demand its submission before the jury retires. Without that demand, the right to a jury decision on the omitted issue is given up, and the court decides it instead.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 49). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: special verdictgeneral verdict with interrogatoriesinconsistent jury verdicts