Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 805.12 (2026)

Special verdicts

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

805.12805.12 Special verdicts.

805.12(1)(1) Use. Unless it orders otherwise, the court shall direct the jury to return a special verdict. The verdict shall be prepared by the court in the form of written questions relating only to material issues of ultimate fact and admitting a direct answer. The jury shall answer in writing. In cases founded upon negligence, the court need not submit separately any particular respect in which the party was allegedly negligent. The court may also direct the jury to find upon particular questions of fact.

805.12(2)(2) Omitted issue. When some material issue of ultimate fact not brought to the attention of the trial court but essential to sustain the judgment is omitted from the verdict, the issue shall be deemed determined by the court in conformity with its judgment and the failure to request a finding by the jury on the issue shall be deemed a waiver of jury trial on that issue.

805.12(3)(3) Clerk’s entries after verdict. Upon receiving a verdict, the clerk shall make an entry on the minutes specifying the time the verdict was received and the court’s order setting time for motions after verdict under s. 805.16. The verdict and special findings shall be filed.

805.12 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 702 (1975); 1975 c. 218.

805.12 AnnotationIf the court can find as a matter of law that a party is causally negligent, contrary to the jury’s answer, and the jury attributes some degree of comparative negligence to that party, the court should change the causal negligence answer and permit the jury’s comparison to stand. Ollinger v. Grall, 80 Wis. 2d 213, 258 N.W.2d 693 (1977).

805.12 AnnotationIf the answer to one material question shows that the jury answered perversely, the court should set aside the entire verdict unless the court is satisfied that the other questions were not affected by the perversity. Fouse v. Persons, 80 Wis. 2d 390, 259 N.W.2d 92 (1977).

805.12 AnnotationWhen the verdict form did not contain a special fact question regarding the major issue of the case, the real issues had not been tried. Schulz v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 81 Wis. 2d 638, 260 N.W.2d 783 (1978).

805.12 AnnotationIf evidence conflicts and inconsistent theories on the cause of the event are advanced, instructions on both theories should be given. Sentell v. Higby, 87 Wis. 2d 44, 273 N.W.2d 780 (Ct. App. 1978).

805.12 AnnotationAn inconsistent verdict, if not timely remedied by reconsideration by the jury, must result in a new trial unless the party injured by the inconsistency waives the portion of its damage claim and the waiver does not result in a change of the prevailing party as found by the jury. Westfall v. Kottke, 110 Wis. 2d 86, 328 N.W.2d 481 (1983).

805.12 AnnotationAmbiguities in jury questions were “omitted issues” under sub. (2) and properly determined by the trial court. Badtke v. Badtke, 122 Wis. 2d 730, 364 N.W.2d 547 (Ct. App. 1985).

805.12 AnnotationA special verdict must cover material issues of ultimate fact. The form of a special verdict is discretionary with the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere as long as all material issues of fact are covered by appropriate questions. Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Engineering Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82, 08-0484.

805.12 AnnotationThe trial court cannot submit a case on one theory and resort to sub. (2) to dispose of it on another theory. Under s. 805.13 (3), the parties confer, with the trial court’s supervision, on the instructions and special verdict that will go to the jury. If a party has an objection, the party must voice it, or it will be waived. If the special verdict leaves out an essential material issue of ultimate fact of a cause of action pled and presented to the jury, and the jury’s answers define, by necessary implication, what the missing issue should be, then, under sub. (2), the trial court may “fill in” this missing issue. But the trial court cannot “fill in” a missing cause of action. Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2, 345 Wis. 2d 669, 827 N.W.2d 99, 10-3137.

805.12 AnnotationSpecial Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin. Decker & Decker. 60 MLR 201 (1977).

805.12 AnnotationProduct Liability Verdict Formulation in Wisconsin. Slattery, Terschan, & Griffin. 61 MLR 381 (1978).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “The trial court's use of the jury's punitive damages award to imply an underlying finding of causal negligence suggests that the trial court was acting under Wis. Stat. § 805.12 (2). This provision addresses omitted issues of ultimate fact on special verdict forms; it provides:…”

Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 805.12 . However, the content of the special verdict remains within the discretion of the circuit court, and this court will not interfere with the special verdict submitted, so long as all material issues of fact are covered by appropriate questions, Meurer v.”

Indus. Risk Insurers & Quad Graphics, Inc. v. Am. Eng'g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 156 (1979); see also Wis. Stat. § 805.12 . *184 ¶ 50. Leavitt directs us to the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 5 (1998), which addresses the liability of commercial sellers of product components for harm caused by products into which the components are integrated.”

Meurer v. ITT Gen. Controls, 280 N.W.2d 156 (Wis. 1979). “The trial court concluded that a question as to the cause of the fire would create a potential for improper comparison because, as the trial court stated, “the end question” is not the cause of the fire but the cause of the fire damage.”

Gross v. Midwest Speedways, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 36 (Wis. 1977). · cites it 2× “[11] Sec. 805.12, Stats. In Wisconsin practice the special verdict is the rule and not the exception.”

Badtke v. Badtke, 364 N.W.2d 547 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “Under the applicable case law, we conclude that such ambiguities constitute *733 “omitted issues” under sec. 805.12(2), Stats., and that they were therefore properly determined by the trial court.”

Kristin Beul v. Asse Int'l, Inc., 233 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2000). “Wis. Stat. § 805.12 (1) and Judicial Council Committee’s 1974 Note thereto; see Anderson v.”

Steele v. Dillard, 486 S.E.2d 278 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “182(1) (Baldwin 1988 & Supp.1996); Nev.Rev.Stat.”

Chernetski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 515 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “, requires a trial court to set forth findings of ultimate fact, as does a jury when it renders its verdict, see § 805.12(1), Stats. A trial court finding of ultimate fact need not be supplemented by commentaries on the evidence or reasons for which the findings are made.”

Sentell v. Higby, 273 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “She argues however that the giving of the emergency instruction, coupled with the omission of separate questions as to the existence of the underlying emergency, may have had the effect of “reinforcing” Higby’s uncorroborated claim and have led the jury to believe it was…”

Davis v. Allstate Ins., 303 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. 1981). “We conclude that Allstate has waived its right to argue, this issue on appeal by operation of sec. 805.12(2), Stats. 1979-80. 3 That part of the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court based on the jury’s findings and award on the issue of bad…”

Ollinger v. Grall, 258 N.W.2d 693 (Wis. 1977). “The statute was further amended when the Code of Procedure was adopted and now appears as sec. 805.12(1), Stats. 4 *220 Underlying reasons for the adoption of the ultimate fact form of verdict were to prevent, in a sense, a cross-examination of the jury and to avoid inconsistent…”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 805.12(1) — 9 cases

Chernetski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 515 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “, requires a trial court to set forth findings of ultimate fact, as does a jury when it renders its verdict, see § 805.12(1), Stats. A trial court finding of ultimate fact need not be supplemented by commentaries on the evidence or reasons for which the findings are made.”

Z.E. v. State, 471 N.W.2d 519 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

In Interest of AE, 471 N.W.2d 519 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

State v. Madison, 2004 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wis. Stat. § 805.12(2) — 6 cases

Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2013 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “The trial court's use of the jury's punitive damages award to imply an underlying finding of causal negligence suggests that the trial court was acting under Wis. Stat. § 805.12 (2). This provision addresses omitted issues of ultimate fact on special verdict forms; it provides:…”

Badtke v. Badtke, 364 N.W.2d 547 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “Under the applicable case law, we conclude that such ambiguities constitute *733 “omitted issues” under sec. 805.12(2), Stats., and that they were therefore properly determined by the trial court.”

Hannebaum v. Direnzo & Bomier, 469 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

Heikkinen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2006 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).

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.