If you’ve ever stared at an MBE question about jury verdicts and thought “wait, what’s the actual difference again?” — you’re not alone. General versus special verdicts is one of those Civil Procedure topics that sounds simple until the exam makes it complicated.

What a General Verdict Actually Is

A general verdict is the one most people picture when they think of a jury. The jury decides who wins and, if the plaintiff wins, how much money they get. That’s it. The jury doesn’t explain its reasoning. It doesn’t break down which elements it found or didn’t find. It just says “we find for the plaintiff” or “we find for the defendant.”

Simple on the surface. But that simplicity is exactly where the traps hide.

Under FRCP 49, the court has discretion to use different verdict forms. A general verdict gives you a clean result but almost no insight into the jury’s thinking. That matters enormously when a party wants to appeal. If the jury returns a general verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff wants to challenge it, the plaintiff has a very hard time arguing the jury got it wrong — because nobody knows which element the jury rejected.

What a Special Verdict Is

A special verdict under FRCP 49(a) flips the dynamic entirely. Instead of deciding who wins, the jury answers specific written factual questions. The judge then applies the law to those answers and enters judgment.

Picture this: a negligence case where the jury is asked — (1) Did the defendant owe a duty of care? (2) Did the defendant breach that duty? (3) Was that breach the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury? (4) What amount of damages, if any, did the plaintiff suffer?

The jury answers each question separately. The judge takes those answers and determines the outcome as a matter of law.

This gives appellate courts a much clearer record. It also forces the jury to engage with each element rather than just going with a gut feeling about who deserves to win. But here’s the trap: if the court submits special verdict questions and fails to include a necessary issue, that issue may be waived. FRCP 49(a)(3) provides that a party must object before the jury retires or the objection is forfeited. Miss that window and you’ve potentially given up a significant appellate argument.

The General Verdict with Interrogatories — The Hybrid Option

This is the one that trips up the most students. FRCP 49(b) creates a third option: a general verdict accompanied by written interrogatories. The jury returns a general verdict AND answers specific factual questions. Sounds like the best of both worlds. It isn’t always.

Here’s why it gets messy. Three outcomes are possible when the jury’s interrogatory answers come back:

First, the answers are consistent with each other and consistent with the general verdict. No problem. The court enters judgment on the verdict.

Second, the answers are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict. The court has a choice: enter judgment based on the interrogatory answers (overriding the general verdict), return the jury for further deliberation, or order a new trial.

Third — and this is the killer — the answers are inconsistent with each other. Now the court cannot enter judgment based on either the answers or the general verdict. The only options are further deliberation or a new trial.

MBE questions love to test which outcome applies in which scenario. Get the three scenarios straight in your head before exam day. They are not interchangeable.

Why the Distinction Matters on the MBE

The NCBE tests this topic because it sits at the intersection of procedure and strategy. Questions often come at you sideways. You’ll see a fact pattern where a jury returns a verdict and one party wants to challenge it — and the right answer depends entirely on what kind of verdict was used.

Here’s a quick hypothetical. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence after a car accident. The court uses a general verdict with interrogatories. The jury finds for the defendant generally, but its written answers indicate both that the defendant breached the duty of care AND that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. The answers are consistent with each other — but they’re inconsistent with the general verdict for the defendant.

What happens? The court can enter judgment based on the interrogatory answers, send the jury back for more deliberation, or order a new trial. The court cannot simply ignore the inconsistency and enter judgment on the general verdict. That’s the kind of nuance the MBE rewards.

Another common trap: confusing who controls the choice of verdict form. It’s the court, not the parties. The parties can request a particular form, but the judge decides. Students sometimes assume the parties have a right to a specific verdict type. They don’t.

Elements You Need to Lock Down

Let’s get concrete. Here’s what you actually need to know cold for the MBE:

General verdict: Jury decides winner and damages. No reasoning required. Hard to appeal on factual grounds. Governed by FRCP 49.

Special verdict: Jury answers written factual questions only. Judge applies law and enters judgment. Objections to omitted issues must be raised before the jury retires or they’re waived.

General verdict with interrogatories: Jury does both. Three possible outcomes — consistent and matching (enter judgment), consistent with each other but inconsistent with general verdict (court chooses between answers, further deliberation, or new trial), or inconsistent with each other (new trial or further deliberation only).

Court’s discretion: The court chooses the verdict form. Parties may request but cannot demand.

Waiver rule: Under FRCP 49(a)(3), failure to object to an omitted issue in a special verdict before the jury retires constitutes waiver.

That waiver rule is the most frequently tested trap. It shows up in answer choices as a tempting “correct” statement about preserving appellate rights — and students who haven’t studied this carefully get it backwards.

A Note on Consistency Review

One more wrinkle worth knowing. When a court reviews inconsistent jury answers under FRCP 49(b), it must attempt to reconcile those answers before ordering a new trial. Courts are supposed to search for a reasonable reading of the answers that makes them consistent. Only if no such reading exists does the court move to further deliberation or a new trial. This principle shows up less frequently on the MBE but it does appear, particularly in questions testing what a court “must” do versus what it “may” do.

FlashTables is a set of professionally formatted two-column PDF rule tables covering all seven MBE subjects — 704 rules total, organized by the official NCBE Subject Matter Outline. The FRCP 49 verdict rules covered in this article are laid out side-by-side in the Civil Procedure table, with the rule on one side and the full definition and elements on the other. Whether you’re a 1L, 2L, or 3L locking in black-letter Civil Procedure for your outline or finals, or a bar-taker drilling these distinctions for rapid active recall before the MBE, the tables give you everything in one clean reference. You can see what’s included at getflashtables.com.

Key Takeaways for General vs. Special Verdicts on the MBE

These distinctions are mechanical once you’ve drilled them. The MBE rewards students who know the rule, know the exception, and know the trap. Now you know all three.