At trial, Plaintiff requested $351,000 from the jury, relied heavily on the sympathy factor of his alleged pain and suffering, and attempted to contort the evidence to obtain a judgment against his mother. In defense of the defendant, we asserted that she did not owe her son a duty as she did not know the condition was dangerous and was not aware that she should have warned people in the yard about the condition. We proposed two special interrogatories concerning whether the condition was dangerous and whether the defendant owed a duty to warn of the allegedly dangerous condition.
After an extended deliberation, the jury found in favor of the defendant, finding that she did not owe Plaintiff a duty to warn of the condition of the yard even though they found the condition was potentially dangerous. The jury answered the special interrogatories consistently with the verdict, finding that the condition was potentially dangerous but also finding that the defendant did not have a duty to warn her guests of the alleged condition. The jury’s deliberation centered solely on the issue of liability and they did not appear to discuss potential damages.