State Farm office in Downtown Baltimore, Aug. 20, 2020. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
A New Jersey appeals court ruling sheds light on the proper judicial response when a jury returns a verdict that is riddled with inconsistencies.
When a jury verdict is returned with conflicting answers, the trial judge should discuss the inconsistency with jurors and elicit information to clarify the jury's intent or possible confusion, the appeals court said Monday in a motorist's dispute with an insurance carrier.
A molded verdict is justifiable where the judge molds it in the jury's presence and obtains their concurrence, the appeals court said.
The appeals court ordered a new trial Monday in a case where the trial judge, after discharging the jury, entered a molded verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The panel, consisting of Appellate Division Judges Richard Hoffman and Morris Smith, said courts generally do not disturb a jury verdict "unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law."
That deference "is reflected also in the general rule that a trial court may not mold a jury verdict according to its perception of the jury's view. A verdict may be molded in consonance with the plainly manifested intention of the jury, but such a determination is best performed in the presence of the jurors and with their consent," the appeals court judges said.
Insurance Dispute
Plaintiff George Bellow brought an uninsured motorist claim against his own insurance carrier, State Farm, claiming that two vehicles that caused him to crash his car left the scene and were not identified. He was driving in the left lane on Route 495 in North Bergen when the vehicles in front of him—a large truck in the left lane and a Lexus in the right lane—stopped suddenly. To avoid hitting them he swerved onto the shoulder and struck a guard rail, which allegedly caused him severe injuries and acute pain and suffering and left him unable to work. Bellow made an uninsured motorist claim based on the alleged negligence of the drivers of the truck and the Lexus.
The parties agreed to proceed with a trial on liability and that State Farm would pay Bellow's $100,000 uninsured motorist policy limit if the jury found him 50% negligent or less.
When the jury announced its verdict, the foreperson said the verdict on the first question, the liability of the truck driver, was two votes for yes and five for no.
Judge Peter Geiger of Bergen County Superior Court reminded the jurors of his previous instruction that each verdict had to be 6-1 or 7-0 or else the jury should stop deliberations. The jury was then advised to continue deliberating.
A short time later, the jury announced a revised verdict, finding the truck driver and Lexus driver not negligent, but they found those drivers' negligence a proximate cause of the accident. Geiger told the jury their verdict was "somewhat inconsistent" and instructed them to resume deliberating. Finally, the jury returned with its third verdict, finding the truck driver and the Lexus driver negligent and that their actions were a proximate cause of the accident. The jury apportioned 55% of fault to the Lexus driver and 20% to the truck driver.
The jury also found Bellow not negligent and not a proximate cause of the accident, but apportioned 25% of fault to him.
Geiger again acknowledged the jury's inconsistency regarding Bellow's negligence and fault. He sent the jury home and then entered judgment in favor of Bellow because the jury had found him less than 50% at fault.
Attorney Michael DeMarrais of Alampi & DeMarrais in Hackensack, who represented Bellow on appeal, died while the case was pending. Thomas Matthews of Soriano, Henkel, Biehl & Matthews in Roseland, representing State Farm, did not return a call about the case.
Charles Toutant
Charles Toutant is a litigation writer for the New Jersey Law Journal.