New York Law Review

Tag: General Verdicts

  • Barry v. Root, 58 N.Y.2d 992 (1983): Preservation of Error and Jury Verdicts

    Barry v. Root, 58 N.Y.2d 992 (1983)

    A party must properly preserve issues of law for appellate review by taking specific exceptions to jury instructions and assisting the trial judge in clarifying legal issues; otherwise, the appellate court will not review the factual determinations underlying a general jury verdict.

    Summary

    In a commercial case, the appellant argued that consequential damages were improperly awarded. The jury returned general verdicts on the plaintiff’s causes of action, and the defendant did not request special verdicts or interrogatories. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that it could not review the factual determinations underlying the lump-sum jury verdicts because the appellant failed to properly preserve its legal objections. The appellant did not take sufficient exceptions to the jury charge, and its requests to charge were erroneous. Therefore, the court was unable to determine whether the jury considered impermissible elements of damages.

    Facts

    The specifics of the commercial dispute are not detailed in this memorandum opinion, but the plaintiff successfully obtained jury verdicts on four causes of action. The defendant appealed, contending that consequential damages were improperly awarded.

    Procedural History

    The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after a jury trial resulted in verdicts for the plaintiff. The Appellate Division’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Court of Appeals can review alleged errors in a jury’s damages award when the party challenging the award failed to properly preserve its objections to the jury instructions at trial by taking specific exceptions and assisting the trial judge in clarifying the legal issues.

    Holding

    No, because the appellant failed to preserve the legal issues for review by not taking sufficient exception to the jury charge and not assisting the trial judge in clarifying or distilling the legal issues.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that its appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing issues of law, not questions of fact. Because the jury returned lump-sum general verdicts without special interrogatories, the court stated that any analysis of how the jury arrived at those numbers would be speculative, a process in which the court could not engage. The court found that the jury instructions were not a “model of either clarity or completeness.” The court stated, “However, other than restating requests to charge that had previously been submitted to the court (which requests themselves were erroneous in significant detail), defendant took no sufficient exception to the charge as given and did not otherwise assist the Trial Judge in clarifying or distilling the legal issues as to which it now seeks our review.” The court held that because the defendant failed to address the charge with particularity, it failed to preserve the legal issues for appeal. The court also noted that the appellant’s other contentions regarding evidentiary rulings and prejudgment interest were without merit.

  • Karran v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp., 299 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1969): Resolving Inconsistent General and Special Verdicts

    Karran v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp., 299 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1969)

    When a jury returns inconsistent general and special verdicts, the trial court must determine which verdict aligns with the weight of the evidence and render judgment accordingly; it is not automatically required to resubmit the case to the jury or order a new trial.

    Summary

    This case concerns inconsistent jury verdicts in a negligence action. The jury returned general verdicts for the plaintiffs but special verdicts finding no negligence on the part of the defendant. The trial court, believing the special verdicts were correct, conformed the general verdicts to the special verdicts and dismissed the direct actions against the defendant. The appellate court affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court had the discretion to conform the verdicts and was not required to resubmit the case to the jury or order a new trial, especially when the court believed the special verdicts aligned with the weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that inconsistent verdicts are a known risk of trying multiple related claims together.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs sued Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. for negligence related to an accident. Welded Tank & Construction Co. Inc. also brought third-party actions against Colorado. The jury returned general verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in their direct actions against Colorado, indicating a finding of negligence. However, the jury also returned special verdicts finding that Colorado was not negligent. The special verdicts were propounded by the court to aid in determining the third-party claims.

    Procedural History

    The trial court initially decided to conform the general verdicts to the special verdicts, dismissing the direct actions against Colorado. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred by conforming the general verdicts to the special verdicts, rather than resubmitting the case to the jury or ordering a new trial, when the jury returned inconsistent general and special verdicts.

    Holding

    No, because the trial court has discretion to determine which verdict aligns with the weight of the evidence and is not automatically required to resubmit the case or order a new trial, especially when the court believes the special verdict is correct.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged the inconsistency between the general and special verdicts. The court emphasized that under the then-governing statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 459), the court had the power to conform the general verdict to the special verdict. The court stated that the trial judge believed the special verdicts absolving Colorado of negligence were supported by the weight of the evidence, stating that “a finding of negligence on Colorado’s part’ was ‘neither reasonable nor consistent with the evidence and its fair inference’”. The Court found no legal basis to compel the trial court to resubmit the case or order a new trial when it soundly believed the special verdict was correct. The court further noted that “Whenever cases are tried together the power of the court is clear…the fact some parties sue directly and others have claims over against the same defendant does not justify breaking down the trial in air-tight compartments insulated from the effects of over-all submission of the cases together.” The court also considered the protracted nature of the litigation and the judicial policy of avoiding unnecessary new trials. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not misled to their legal prejudice by the court’s method of submitting the questions for special verdicts.