Marsha Whitlow
v.
Ron McConnaha, Jodi McConnaha, and Timothy Newton
Ron and Jodi McConnaha seek further review after the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s partial denial of the plaintiff’s motion for new trial and remanded for a new trial as to all defendants. The McConnahas claim the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial as to the McConnahas, as the jury unanimously found the McConnahas were not at fault. They further claim the plaintiff waived any argument that the verdict was inconsistent by failing to object to the verdict form.
Resister
Marsha Whitlow
Applicant
Ron McConnaha, Jodi McConnaha, and Timothy Newton
Attorneys for the Resister
Pressley Henningsen
Benjamin P. Long
Attorneys for the Applicant
Patrick L. Woodward
Ryan F. Gerdes
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Oct 22, 2019 1:00 PM Iowa Supreme Court Courtroom
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. (13 pages)
Marsha Whitlow, plaintiff in a comparative-fault action against two defendants, appeals the denial of her motion for mistrial and motion for new trial. The verdict form wrongly instructed the jury to stop answering special interrogatories after it found for the first defendant, thus the jury did not render a verdict as to the second defendant. Whitlow alleges this constituted a hung jury or inconsistent verdicts warranting a new trial. Although the court did order new trial as to the second defendant, the plaintiff contends both defendants must be retried. OPINION HOLDS: We agree the incomplete verdict requires a new trial involving both defendants.