Insight

Any Nine Will Do -- If You Are the Defendant

The "same nine" rule is derived from the Oregon Constitution, and states "three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.” Find more information in the following article.

Any Nine Will Do If You Are the Defendant
SL

Sara A. Cassidey and Richard A. Lee

September 30, 2015 01:00 PM

Trial attorneys focused on preparing for trial may approach the document that will serve as the culmination of the trial – the verdict form – last, and with little thought. But that verdict form deserves close attention. Do not simply reach for uniform verdict forms and use them without thought. While those familiar uniform verdict forms are good places to start, they may not offer an approach favorable to the defense. For a variety of case-specific reasons, you may want a detailed verdict form, or a very general verdict form. You will also want to consider the “same nine” rule and how that rule might affect a verdict. This rule may offer those of us representing defendants further opportunities to obtain a defense verdict.

The “same nine” rule is derived from article VII (Amended), section 5(7) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that, in civil cases, “three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict.” Where the jury consists of 12 members, that constitutional provision requires the same nine jurors to agree on every interdependent element of a particular claim against a particular defendant. In other words, the “same nine” rule applies where the answers reached by the jury are interdependent and build to a verdict for one of the parties. It does not apply in situations where the answers are separate and independent.

Currently, UCJI No. 90.03A, the special verdict form for “Fault/Negligence, Causation, and Damages,” and UCJI No. 90.04, the special verdict form for “Comparative Fault/Negligence,” begin with a preliminary instruction regarding the “same nine” rule: “At least the same nine jurors must agree to the answer for each of the following questions that you answer.” (Emphasis added.) UCJI Nos. 90.03A and 90.04 then pose the following separate questions for the jury regarding negligence and causation:

1. Was the defendant [at fault/negligent] in one or more of the ways the plaintiff claims?
ANSWER: (Yes or No)
If “yes,” go to question 2.
If “no,” your verdict is for the defendant. Do not answer any more questions. Your presiding juror must sign this verdict form.

2. Was the defendant’s [fault/negligence] a cause of damages to the plaintiff?
ANSWER: (Yes or No)
If “yes,” go to question 3.
If “no,” your verdict is for the defendant. Do not answer any more questions. Your presiding juror must sign this verdict form.

The problem with the foregoing instructions is that they do not take into account that, although questions of negligence and causation are interdependent questions when building toward a verdict for the plaintiff, those questions are independent questions for purposes of rendering a verdict for the defendant. It is axiomatic that a plaintiff must prove each required element of his or her claim to prevail, such as negligence, causation, and damages. When a plaintiff fails to prove any one element, however, the defendant will not be liable.

To illustrate the problem presented by the preliminary instruction in UCJI Nos. 90.03A and 90.04 concerning the “same nine” rule, consider the simple negligence case involving a single defendant, where the plaintiff presents ambiguous evidence of negligence and poor evidence that the defendant’s conduct caused any injury. Thus, causation is the best defense. The jury is then instructed under either of the foregoing uniform verdict forms.

Assume that the vote on the first question, negligence, is nine to three in favor of the plaintiff. Because the verdict form has instructed that “[a]t least the same nine jurors must agree to the answer for each of the following questions,” the nine jurors who voted in favor of plaintiff-and only those nine-proceed to the question of causation. Now, for the defendant to obtain a favorable verdict based on causation, all nine who answered “yes” to the question of negligence would have to answer “no” to the question of causation. Likewise, for the plaintiff to obtain a verdict, all nine who answered “yes” on the negligence question would have to agree. Under the instruction, the three jurors who voted “no” on the first question on negligence would not participate in answering the second question on causation. Under the instruction given, there is a hung jury if those nine who voted “yes” on negligence do not agree on causation.

But, what if six of the nine who voted “yes” on negligence would answer “no” on causation? And, further assume that the three jurors who voted “no” on negligence would also vote “no” on causation. In such a case, the defendant just missed an opportunity for a defense verdict, because there were nine jurors who would have voted “no” on causation. Because causation is independent of negligence for purposes of a defense verdict, any nine jurors who answered “no” on causation could have rendered a constitutionally valid verdict for the defendant. Thus, in this situation, the uniform instruction did a disservice to the defendant.

One way to avoid this problem would be to combine the elements of negligence and causation into a single question, such as, “Was the defendant negligent in one or more ways claimed by plaintiff that caused damage to plaintiff?” Prior uniform verdict forms posed the questions of negligence and causation that way.³ Another way to avoid the problem posed by this hypothetical would be to ask the causation question first. Then nine jurors would have answered “no” on the first question, and the case would end with a defense verdict. But this forces the parties to engage in gamesmanship in ordering the questions on the verdict form.

Perhaps a better way to avoid the problem posed by the above hypothetical is to keep the questions of negligence and causation separate, but to clearly instruct the jury which nine jurors must agree on each question to reach a valid verdict. By keeping the questions separate, the jury is presented with multiple opportunities to render a defense verdict, and is forced to distinctly consider each element necessary to reach a valid verdict for the plaintiff. To achieve this goal, the preliminary instruction regarding the “same nine” rule could be omitted from the verdict form, and the questions of negligence and causation might be presented as follows:

1. Was the defendant [at fault/negligent] in one or more of the ways the plaintiff claims?
ANSWER: (Yes or No)If any nine jurors answer “yes” to question 1, go to question 2.
If any nine jurors answer “no” to question 1, your verdict is for the defendant. Do not answer any more questions. Your presiding juror must sign this verdict form.

2. Was the defendant’s [fault/negligence] a cause of damages to the plaintiff?
ANSWER: (Yes or No)If at least nine of the same jurors who answered “yes” on question 1 answer “yes” to question 2,go to question 3.If any nine jurors answer “no” to question 2, your verdict is for the defendant. Do not answer any more questions. Your presiding juror must sign this verdict form.

Similar considerations regarding the application of the “same nine” rule should be given to questions concerning the fault of multiple defendants, the comparative fault of the plaintiff, and any other affirmative defenses raised by the defendant or defendants. Any one of those may be an independent basis for a defense verdict.

Do not fall into the habit of proposing a current uniform verdict form without giving your case some thought. Strive to give your client every available opportunity to win the case. Simply put, where a question is independent for purposes of a defense verdict and the agreement of any nine jurors will do, the verdict form should say so.

For sources and more information, follow the link below.

Trending Articles

Introducing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore


by Jennifer Verta

This year’s awards reflect the strength of the Best Lawyers network and its role in elevating legal talent worldwide.

2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore

Revealing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria


by Jamilla Tabbara

These honors underscore the reach of the Best Lawyers network and its focus on top legal talent.

map of Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

The 2025 Legal Outlook Survey Results Are In


by Jennifer Verta

Discover what Best Lawyers honorees see ahead for the legal industry.

Person standing at a crossroads with multiple intersecting paths and a signpost.

The Best Lawyers Network: Global Recognition with Long-term Value


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how Best Lawyers' peer-review process helps recognized lawyers attract more clients and referral opportunities.

Lawyers networking

Jefferson Fisher: The Secrets to Influential Legal Marketing


by Jennifer Verta

How lawyers can apply Jefferson Fisher’s communication and marketing strategies to build trust, attract clients and grow their practice.

Portrait of Jefferson Fisher a legal marketing expert

Is Your Law Firm’s Website Driving Clients Away?


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key website issues that may be affecting client engagement and retention.

Phone displaying 'This site cannot be reached' message

A Guide to Workers' Compensation Law for 2025 and Beyond


by Bryan Driscoll

A woman with a laptop screen reflected in her glasses

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends in Texas, Utah, Georgia and SC


by Bryan Driscoll

A fresh wave of medical malpractice reform is reshaping the law.

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends hed

Why Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Want to 'Delete All IP Law'


by Bryan Driscoll

This Isn’t Just a Debate Over How to Pay Creators. It’s a Direct Challenge to Legal Infrastructure.

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey standing together Infront of the X logo

Best Lawyers Launches CMO Advisory Board


by Jamilla Tabbara

Strategic counsel from legal marketing’s most experienced voices.

Group photo of Best Lawyers CMO Advisory Board members

Changes in California Employment Law for 2025


by Laurie Villanueva

What employers need to know to ensure compliance in the coming year and beyond

A pair of hands holding a checklist featuring a generic profile picture and the state of California

Common Law Firm Landing Page Problems to Address


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key issues on law firm landing pages to improve client engagement and conversion.

Laptop showing law firm landing page analytics

New Employment Law Recognizes Extraordinary Stress Is Everyday Reality for NY Lawyers


by Bryan Driscoll

A stressed woman has her head resting on her hands above a laptop

Best Lawyers Introduces Smithy AI


by Jamilla Tabbara

Transforming legal content creation for attorneys and firms.

Start using Smithy AI, a content tool by Best Lawyers

How to Create High-Converting Landing Pages for Your Law Firm


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how to create high-converting law firm landing pages that drive client engagement and lead generation.

Laptop screen displaying website tools to improve client conversion rates