SINGH, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A., PartII

SINGH,
v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A., >

























Filed 7/1/10

>

>

>

>

>

>

>CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION







IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
THREE






>

GURPREET SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHLAND STONE, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B208620 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC350196)

STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….





b. >The Special Verdict Findings Are
Inconsistent

(1) Applicable
Law

A
special verdict is inconsistent if there is no possibility of reconciling its
findings with each other. (Zagami, Inc. v. James A.
Crone, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1092 (Zagami).) If a
verdict appears inconsistent, a party adversely affected should request
clarification, and the court should send the jury out again to resolve the
inconsistency. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 619; Woodcock v.
Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 ( >Woodcock); Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 302‑303
(Mendoza).) >[1] If no party requests clarification or an
inconsistency remains after the jury returns, the trial court must interpret
the verdict in light of the jury instructions and the evidence and attempt to
resolve any inconsistency. (Hasson v.
Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 540-541, overruled on another
ground in Soule v. General Motors Corp.
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580; Woodcock, > supra, 69 Cal.2d at
pp. 456-457.)

On
appeal, we review a special verdict de novo to determine whether its findings
are inconsistent. (Zagami, supra
, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092.)
With a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict
with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the
verdict. ( >Ibid.; Mendoza, supra,
81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 302-303.) â€