10.7 F. Juror Confusion

LibraryNY Post-Trial Practice & Procedures 2010

A motion to set aside a verdict based on juror confusion requires quite a bit of forethought given the preservation issues implicated with such a motion. To successfully preserve an argument that the jury’s verdict is inconsistent, an attorney must raise the issue prior to the jury’s discharge.604 Where a judge relieves a jury by his or her instructions, it has ceased to be a jury, and, if its members happen to come together again, they are there as individuals and no longer as an organized group, an arm or agency of the law.605 A jury, once discharged, may not be recalled; once a verdict is reached and the jury is dismissed, the jury ceases to be an agency of the law.606 Therefore, a judge is without power to reassemble a jury that has been formally discharged.607

The decision in Bradley v. Earl B. Feiden, Inc.608 provides one example of the preservation rule’s stringent nature. In Bradley, the plaintiff claimed that a refrigerator manufactured and sold by defendants caused a fire in his house. The plaintiff’s theory of the case was that the refrigerator’s defrost timer malfunctioned, which resulted in excessive heating of the coils, melting of the insulation and ignition of the fire. The jury was given a special verdict sheet containing five questions. It was to determine whether (1) the fire originated in the refrigerator’s freezer, (2) the defrost timer in the freezer was defective, (3) the defect in the freezer was a substantial contributing factor in causing the fire, (4) the defendant manufacturer breached its warranty insofar as the refrigerator/freezer was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose, and (5) the manufacturer’s breach of warranty was a substantial contributing factor in causing the fire.

During deliberations, the jury asked the court: “For us to find for the Plaintiff, do we have to agree that the defrost timer was at fault, or do we just have to say that the origin of the fire was the freezer?”609 The court responded by reading back the charges on strict products liability and breach of warranty. The court further instructed the jury that, even if it determined that the defrost timer was not defective or that the defect was not a substantial cause of the fire, it should proceed to consider plaintiff’s claim for breach of warranty. At that point, the defendant manufacturer’s attorney argued to the trial judge that the juror note indicated that an inconsistent verdict was distinctly possible—i.e., the jury could not find that the defrost timer was not defective and yet find there was a breach of implied warranty because to do so would be based on speculation. The jury then reached a verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the strict products liability claim but in favor of the plaintiff on the breach-of-warranty claim.

After the jurors were discharged, the defendant manufacturer renewed its motion for a directed verdict on sufficiency grounds and also moved to set aside the verdict as irreconcilable. The trial court denied the defendant manufacturer’s motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT