(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 interrogatories 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 his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he 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
Part VI: Trials · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 gives the court tools to have the jury answer specific factual questions — either a full special verdict or interrogatories paired with a general verdict.
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 appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58A. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58A in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court 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, judgment shall not be entered, but the court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.
Plain-English Summary
Instead of asking a jury for a single up-or-down verdict, a court can require a special verdict: a written finding on each issue of fact, submitted through interrogatories, prepared verdict forms, or whatever method the court thinks works best for the case. The court has to give the jury enough explanation to make those findings. If the court's special-verdict submission accidentally leaves out a factual issue raised by the pleadings or the evidence, a party waives the right to a jury trial on that omitted issue unless it demands the issue be submitted before the jury retires. Left undemanded and undecided, the court can make its own finding on the omitted issue, or, if it doesn't, the finding is treated as consistent with the judgment on the special verdict.
Rule 49 also covers the middle option: a general verdict paired with written interrogatories on specific factual issues. When the general verdict and the interrogatory answers line up, judgment gets entered on them under Rule 58A. When the answers are consistent with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment based on the answers instead of the general verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial. And when the interrogatory answers conflict with each other as well as with the general verdict, the court can't enter judgment at all — it has to send the jury back for further deliberation or order a new trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a special verdict, and how is it different from a general verdict?
A special verdict asks the jury to make a written finding on each individual issue of fact rather than render one overall verdict for a side. The court submits the factual questions through interrogatories, prepared forms, or another method, then applies the law to those findings itself.
What happens if the jury's interrogatory answers conflict with its general verdict?
It depends on how the conflict runs. If the interrogatory answers are consistent with each other but at odds with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment based on the answers, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial. If the answers conflict with each other and with the general verdict, the court can't enter judgment at all — it must send the jury back or order a new trial.
What if the court's special-verdict questions accidentally omit a factual issue?
A party who wants that issue decided by the jury has to demand its submission before the jury retires, or the right to a jury determination on that issue is waived. Without a timely demand, the court can make its own finding on the omitted issue, and if it doesn't, the finding is deemed consistent with the special-verdict judgment.
Why would a court use interrogatories alongside a general verdict instead of a straight verdict?
Interrogatories give the court and the parties insight into the specific factual findings behind the jury's bottom-line verdict, which can help catch inconsistencies, support post-trial motions, or clarify the basis for the judgment before it's entered under Rule 58A.
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: special verdict form utahjury interrogatories utahurcp 49inconsistent verdict answers utahutah rule 49