(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 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 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 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
Group VI: Trials · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 49 lets the trial court require the jury to return a special verdict on specific factual issues, or a general verdict paired with written answers to interrogatories, and tells the court what to do when the two don't line up.
Full Text of Rule 49
(b) General Verdict Accompanied by Answers 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 58. 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 58 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.
Notes
Reporter’s Notes: This rule is identical to Federal Rule 49. The rule sets out in detail two different procedures: Rule 49(a) provides for a special verdict in the form of written findings by the jury on the specific issues submitted to them by the court. Rule 49(b) provides for a general verdict accompanied by the jury’s answers to interrogatories. The special verdict was recognized in 12 V.S.A. § 1946 (now superseded). Both procedures provided in Rule 49 were known in Vermont practice. See Pitts v. Howe Scale Co., 110 Vt. 27, 1 A.2d 695 (1938); McKinstry v. Collins, 76 Vt. 221, 56 A. 985 (1904). Either procedure may be useful in a complicated case or in a case in which legal and factual issues are clearly separable. The special verdict required in a condemnation proceeding under 12 V.S.A. § 1904a should be taken in accordance with this rule. It is not intended that Rule 49(a) supersede the provision of 12 V.S.A. § 1036 that general verdicts be taken in comparative negligence cases. In such cases, however, a general verdict with interrogatories under Rule 49(b) should be used in order to avoid confusion in instructing the jury and in reviewing the verdict.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49 gives the trial court two ways to structure a jury's verdict beyond the ordinary general verdict. Under subdivision (a), the court can ask the jury for a special verdict: written findings on each issue of fact, submitted through questions, forms, or whatever method the court thinks works best, along with the instruction needed to let the jury make those findings. If the court's questions leave out an issue the pleadings or evidence raised, a party waives that issue unless it demands submission before the jury retires; without a demand, the court may find that issue itself, or is deemed to have found it consistent with the verdict.
Subdivision (b) takes a different approach: the jury returns a general verdict, but also answers written interrogatories on one or more issues that bear on that verdict. When the general verdict and the interrogatory answers agree, judgment follows both under Rule 58. When the answers agree with each other but conflict with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back for more deliberation, or order a new trial. When the answers conflict with each other, and at least one also conflicts with the general verdict, the court cannot enter judgment at all; it must return the jury for further deliberation or order a new trial.
Both tools suit cases where legal and factual issues can be teased apart, or where the dispute is complicated enough that a bare general verdict would leave the reasoning opaque. The Reporter's Notes flag one limit: Rule 49(a)'s special verdict does not override the statutory requirement that comparative-negligence cases use a general verdict, though a general verdict paired with interrogatories under Rule 49(b) works well in that setting and helps avoid confusion in instructing the jury.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a special verdict and a general verdict with interrogatories?
A special verdict under Rule 49(a) asks the jury only for written findings on each fact issue, with no general verdict at all. A general verdict with interrogatories under Rule 49(b) asks the jury for both a general verdict and written answers to specific factual questions.
What happens if the court's special-verdict questions leave out an issue raised by the pleadings or evidence?
Each party waives the right to a jury trial on that omitted issue unless the party demands its submission to the jury before the jury retires. If no demand is made, the court may find the omitted issue itself, or is deemed to have found it in a way consistent with the judgment on the special verdict.
What happens if the jury's interrogatory answers conflict with its general verdict, but the answers agree with each other?
The court may enter judgment based on the answers rather than the general verdict, return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict, or order a new trial.
What happens if the jury's interrogatory answers conflict with each other?
If the answers are inconsistent with each other, and at least one is also inconsistent with the general verdict, the court cannot enter judgment. It must return the jury for further consideration or order a new trial.
Can Rule 49 be used in a comparative-negligence case?
The Reporter's Notes explain that Rule 49(a)'s special verdict does not replace the statutory requirement that comparative-negligence cases take a general verdict. A general verdict accompanied by interrogatories under Rule 49(b), however, is suited to that kind of case.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Reporter's Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: special verdict Vermontjury interrogatoriesgeneral verdict forminconsistent verdict answersVRCP 49