chambers discussion before the jury was discharged, but the court did not find the verdicts to be inconsistent. Defendants timely appealed from the judgment. DISCUSSION Inconsistent Verdicts on Negligent and Strict Liability Failure to Warn By special verdict, the jury found McNeil liable on plaintiff’s claim for negligent failure to warn, but not liable on plaintiff’s claim for strict liability failure to warn. McNeil contends that the verdicts are inconsistent, and that therefore the verdict of liability on the negligence theory must be set aside. For the reasons explained below, we agree. A. Inconsistency in Special Verdicts inconsistent verdict rule is based upon the fundamental “‘“The proposition that a factfinder may not make inconsistent determinations of fact based on the same evidence. . . .” [Citations.] An inconsistent verdict may arise from an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict [citation] or irreconcilable findings. [Citation.] Where there is an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict, both or all the questions are equally against the law. [Citation.] The appellate court is not permitted to choose between inconsistent answers.’ [Citation.]” (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 716 (Oxford).) proper remedy for an inconsistent special verdict is a new trial. “The [Citation.]” (Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 358 (Singh).) court reviewing a special verdict does not infer findings “A in favor of the prevailing party [citation], and there is no presumption in
chambers discussion before the jury was discharged, but the court did not find the verdicts to be inconsistent. Defendants timely appealed from the judgment. DISCUSSION Inconsistent Verdicts on Negligent and Strict Liability Failure to Warn By special verdict, the jury found McNeil liable on plaintiff’s claim for negligent failure to warn, but not liable on plaintiff’s claim for strict liability failure to warn. McNeil contends that the verdicts are inconsistent, and that therefore the verdict of liability on the negligence theory must be set aside. For the reasons explained below, we agree. A. Inconsistency in Special Verdicts “‘“The inconsistent verdict rule is based upon the fundamental proposition that a factfinder may not make inconsistent determinations of fact based on the same evidence. . . .” [Citations.] An inconsistent verdict may arise from an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict [citation] or irreconcilable findings. [Citation.] Where there is an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict, both or all the questions are equally against the law. [Citation.] The appellate court is not permitted to choose between inconsistent answers.’ [Citation.]” (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 716 (Oxford).) “The proper remedy for an inconsistent special verdict is a new trial. [Citation.]” (Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 358 (Singh).) “A court reviewing a special verdict does not infer findings in favor of the prevailing party [citation], and there is no presumption in