concurring in result.
I agree that the jury's general verdict here should not have been impeached by the calculation form and, as such, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $150,000.
I write to express my opposition to the majority's "urgling]" trial court judges "to *1227facilitate and assist jurors in the deliberative process, in order to avoid mistrials." I do not think it proper, advisable, or (perhaps) constitutional for judges to "facilitate and assist" in jury deliberations absent the consent of the parties.
I acknowledge that the majority's view reflects the spirit of our new Jury Rule 28. As the majority's opinion reflects, Jury Rule 28 (adopted over Justice Rucker's and my dissent and over the contrary unanimous recommendation of our Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure) is grounded in a goal of improved efficiency-a desire to avoid mistrials. Certainly we should strive for improved efficiency. But I believe that the prejudice to the parties and our system of trial by jury of allowing-indeed "urgling]"-judges "to facilitate and assist" in jury deliberations outweighs any benefits of improved efficiency in this regard.
RUCKER, J., concurs.