Croghan v. Don's Dugout, LLC

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-02-2014
  • Case #: A151154
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; and Wollheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a party believes that a verdict is inconsistent it must (1) object to the verdict before the jury is discharged, and (2) request jury clarification of the matter under ORCP 59 G(4).

Don's Dugout appealed a jury verdict against them for discrimination/retaliation and battery. Croghan, a former employee of Don's Dugout, sued Don's Dugout for wrongful discharge, discrimination/retaliation, and battery. A jury found in favor of Croghan on her discrimination/retaliation and battery claims, but did not agree with her wrongful discharge claim. At the close of trial, Don's Dugout told the trial court that they did not need anything else from the jury. Shortly thereafter, Don's Dugout moved for a mistrial on the basis of an inconsistent verdict. However, Don's Dugout did not invoke ORCP 59G(4). Instead Don's Dugout stood silently as the jury was discharged. When a party believes that a verdict is inconsistent it must (1) object to the verdict before the jury is discharged; and (2) request jury clarification of the matter under ORCP 59G(4). The Court held that Don's Dugout waived their ability to challenge the verdict on appeal because Don's Dugout did not invoke ORCP 59G(4) as the only proper remedy for what it believed was an inconsistent verdict. Affirmed.

Advanced Search