The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a party”?s post-trial claim that a jury verdict is inconsistent does not preserve for appeal the separate and legally distinct claim that the verdict was the result of an unlawful jury compromise. In Reider v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) the widow of a deceased consumer of tobacco products brought action against the tobacco manufacturer seeking recovery based on the death of her husband. While the jury found that Philip Morris was 5% libel and that the decedent was 95% libel they further that the widow sustained no damages resulting from her husband”?s injuries and death. Before the jury was discharged the widow objected to the verdict on the ground that the finding of liability was inconsistent with a zero damages award, given the trial evidence and that the jury failed to follow the district court”?s instructions with regard to apportionment of fault. She requested that the jury be sent back for further deliberations on damages.
Then on appeal she abandoned the inconsistent verdict claim and argued that she was entitled to a new trial because the verdict was the result of an unlawful compromise between jurors on the issues of liability and damages. The Court of Appeals discussed at length claims of an inconsistent verdict and of unlawful compromise. She claimed that her argument before the district court put it on notice that she was raising a compromised verdict claim. The court rejected that argument. In upholding the jury”?s verdict the court said:
“Finally, had she been making a compromise verdict objection, Ms. Reider had ample time to correct the district court”?s misunderstanding that she was raising only an inconsistent verdict claim. She could have filed a motion for reconsideration when the district court issued its written order, or she could have filed a separate motion for a new trial. She did neither, and her compromise verdict claim is therefore forfeited. See United States v. Kennedy,, 71 F.3d 951, 959 (6th Cir. 2013) (compromise verdict claim, made for the first time on appeal, was forfeited).”