THOMAS v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (2025)

Writ granted. The jury found plaintiff was negligent but his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident; however, the jury thereafter assigned 15% negligence to him and 85% to defendant. These findings are inconsistent. See La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1812C(1); Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 94-1252 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So. 2d 742, 747. This inconsistency required the trial court to either return the jury for further consideration of its answers or order a new trial. See La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1813(E); Ferrell, 650 So. 2d at 747. The trial court's failure to do so is a legal error that interdicted the jury's fact-finding process relative to whether plaintiff's negligence was a legal cause of the accident. See Ferrell, 650 So. 2d at 747; Gladney v. May, 29,373 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/7/97), 697 So. 2d 1022, 1025, writ denied, 97-2417 (La. 1/9/98), 705 So. 2d 1101.

Such error generally prompts de novo appellate review of whether plaintiff's negligence was a legal cause of the accident. See Ferrell, 650 So. 2d at 747; Gladney, 697 So. 2d at 1025. Here, however, plaintiff consented to a judgment allocating 15% fault to him, effectively resolving the verdict's inconsistency by conceding his negligence was a legal cause of the accident. Under these circumstances, neither de novo review nor a new trial is necessary. The court of appeal thus erred in vacating the trial court's judgment on the jury's verdict and remanding for a new trial on these grounds.

The court of appeal's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of defendant's remaining assignments of error on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

PER CURIAM