Case ID: nj-super_121/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENRY JORDAN AND EMILY JORDAN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF NEWARK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Submitted October 2, 1972
    Decided October 18, 1972.
    
      Before Judges Fritz, Lynch and Demos.
    
      Mr. William H. Walls, attorney for appellant (Mr. William Rossmoore, on the brief).
    
      Mr. Mario V. Farco, attorney for respondents (Mr. John E. Hughes, on the brief).
   Pee Curiam.

In this personal injury, negligence, fall down action, defendant appeals from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. The wife’s claim was abandoned. Defendant seeks a new trial, asserting along with other grounds, that it was improperly deprived of a trial with a jury of 12.

Both parties had made timely demand for a jury of 12 pursuant to R. 1:8-2(b), effective September 13, 1971.

The rule provides:

A demand for a jury in a civil action is deemed to be a demand for a jury of 6 unless such demand expressely requests a jury of 12.

At trial time plaintiff consented to proceed with a jury of six while defendant pressed the demand for a jury of 12. The trial court refused to accede to the demand and ordered the trial to proceed with a jury of six.

The N. J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 9, provides in part:

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate * * *

The constitutional guarantee of jury trial has been interpreted to mean a jury of 12. State v. James, 96 N. J. L. 132, 136 (E. & A. 1921).

Under the circumstances herein, defendant’s right to a trial by a jury of 12 was improperly denied.

Defendant did not waive its right to a jury of 12 by participating in the trial pursuant to the court’s direction.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.