Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
320 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
MGM Grand security (defendant) detained Fernando Duk (plaintiff) for drunk, disruptive casino behavior; despite being told Duk was an insulin-dependent diabetic and hearing him complain of chest and lung pain, security relayed only the lung pain to responding EMTs. Duk was later found to have suffered a heart attack requiring a transplant, and sued MGM for negligence. Under Nevada's comparative-negligence cap, a plaintiff more than 50% at fault recovers nothing; the jury's first verdict inconsistently found Duk 65% negligent while still awarding him $3.3 million. The district court sent the jury back to deliberate further, and it returned a second verdict finding Duk only 49% negligent, keeping the same $3.3 million award. MGM moved for a new trial based on the discrepancy between the two verdicts; the district court granted it, and the second trial's jury found for MGM. Duk appealed both the new-trial order and the subsequent judgment.
Whether a second jury verdict, reached after the court resubmits an internally inconsistent first verdict for further deliberation, may be relied upon to enter judgment even though it differs from the first verdict.