Verdict forms with compound legal questions confuse juries beyond their competence

Evidence

William Vogel remembered saying, “I thought we were just supposed to find them guilty or innocent.” … The jurors read the questions several times, trying to parse the compound sentences. How could they possibly determine the month and year that the chemicals had arrived at the wells? Pinder and Guswa had offered opinions and had spoken about the “travel times” of the chemicals, but that testimony had been confusing at best. And what did the judge mean by “substantial” contribution? What exactly was a “preponderance of the evidence?” — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 2337

Categorization

• SEED: An essay arguing that special-verdict forms convert juries from deciders of guilt into amateur toxicologists, and that the confusion is structural rather than incidental.
• QUESTION: How common is the compound special-verdict form in complex civil litigation, and has any jurisdiction studied juror comprehension of it?