K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-249 (2026)

Special verdict; general verdict; written questions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-249. Special verdict; general verdict; written questions. (a) Special verdict. (1) In general. The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact. The court may do so by:

(A) Submitting written questions susceptible of a categorical or other brief answer;

(B) submitting written forms of the special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or

(C) using any other method that the court considers appropriate.

(2) Instructions. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to make its findings on each submitted issue.

(3) Issues not submitted. A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the jury unless, before the jury retires, the party demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict.

(b) General verdict with answers to written questions. (1) In general. The court may on written request, submit to the jury forms for a general verdict, together with written questions on one or more issues of fact that the jury must decide. The court must give the instructions and explanations necessary to enable the jury to render a general verdict and answer the questions in writing, and must direct the jury to do both.

(2) Verdict and answers consistent. When the general verdict and the answers are consistent, the court must approve an appropriate judgment on the verdict and answers.

(3) Answers inconsistent with the verdict. When the answers are consistent with each other, but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may:

(A) Approve an appropriate judgment according to the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict;

(B) direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict; or

(C) order a new trial.

(4) Answers inconsistent with each other and the verdict. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is also inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment must not be entered; instead, the court must direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict, or must order a new trial.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-249; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 119; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 11; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1965–2005 · leading case: Bott v. Wendler, 453 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bott v. Wendler, 453 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 10× “At the close of all the evidence, the court fully instructed the jury on all issues of law involved, and, at the defendants request, submitted a special verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-249 ( a ). The written questions submitted for the jury to answer were in the form requested by…”
Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “Likewise, there was no request that the jury specify the separate acts of negligence attributed by plaintiffs to Marshall.”
Kiser v. Gilmore, 587 P.2d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “Do you, the jury, find that the defendant, William Gilmore, breached any warranties in the sale of the cattle to the plaintiffs?" K.S.A. 60-249( b ) provides that if a party makes a written request, the trial judge may submit written interrogatories upon one or more substantial…”
Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266 (S.D. 1994). · cites it 2× “735, § 5/2-1109 (West 1993); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-249(a) (West 1992); Md.”
Taiwo v. Kim Phan Thi Vu, 822 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1991). “See K.S.A. 60-249. On appeal, the appellant has the burden to show error.”
Anderson v. Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc., 819 P.2d 1192 (Kan. 1991). “Defendants argue that lumping the different fraud theories into one finding on the verdict form deny them and the appellate courts the ability to determine which theory of fraud was applied to a particular defendánt by the jury. Defendants also argue that not itemizing the…”
Rohr Ex Rel. Rohr v. Henderson, 483 P.2d 1089 (Kan. 1971). · cites it 2× “" No general verdict was submitted to the jury; instead, special verdicts in the form of special questions were submitted under K.S.A. 60-249 ( a ). The record on appeal reveals the following occurrence during the trial: "After going to the jury room for their deliberations at…”
Schaeffer v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 608 P.2d 1309 (Kan. 1980). “Defendant requested that certain special questions be submitted to the jury as a part of its verdict as authorized by K.S.A. 60-249. The decision to submit special interrogatories to the jury rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on…”
Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 883 P.2d 1120 (Kan. 1994). “The nature of the risk is the focus of the second statement. It does not seem to have been intended by the speaker to be directions to the jurors as to how to apply the principle of assumption of risk in determining liability.”
Boyle v. Harries, 923 P.2d 504 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “K.S.A. 60-249(b) provides in relevant part: “When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers.”
Bick v. Peat Marwick & Main, 799 P.2d 94 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “Here, the jury was asked: "Do you find that plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known any time before February 18, 1986, that his 1981 income tax return did not include sums received bv him from Koch Exploration that he received in 1981?” The jury responded: “No.”
Roe Vill., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 403 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1965). · cites it 2× “The judge shall direct the appropriate judgment to be entered upon a special verdict or upon a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories returned by a jury pursuant to section 60-249. *249 When the judge directs that a party recover only money or costs or that…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-249(a) — 4 cases
Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford, 778 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1989). “Likewise, there was no request that the jury specify the separate acts of negligence attributed by plaintiffs to Marshall.”
Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266 (S.D. 1994). “735, § 5/2-1109 (West 1993); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-249(a) (West 1992); Md.”
Donnini v. Ouano, 810 P.2d 1163 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
Schauf v. Schauf, 107 P.3d 1237 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 60-249(b) — 2 cases
Boyle v. Harries, 923 P.2d 504 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “K.S.A. 60-249(b) provides in relevant part: “When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers.”
Bick v. Peat Marwick & Main, 799 P.2d 94 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “Here, the jury was asked: "Do you find that plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known any time before February 18, 1986, that his 1981 income tax return did not include sums received bv him from Koch Exploration that he received in 1981?” The jury responded: “No.”
— K.S.A. § 60-249(fe) — 1 case
Kiser v. Gilmore, 587 P.2d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “Do you, the jury, find that the defendant, William Gilmore, breached any warranties in the sale of the cattle to the plaintiffs?" K.S.A. 60-249( b ) provides that if a party makes a written request, the trial judge may submit written interrogatories upon one or more substantial…”
— K.S.A. § 60-249(h) — 1 case
English Vill. Props., Inc. v. Boettcher & Lieurance Constr. Co., 640 P.2d 1282 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.