Case Name: Frederick Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant; Annie Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-02
Citations: 58 Misc. 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant. Annie Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 52–53

Head Matter:
Frederick Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant. Annie Dittman, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,
February, 1908.)
Hew trial: Grounds—Misconduct of or affecting jury — Improper inspection of premises: Proceedings to procure new trial — Affidavits and testimony of jurors.
A motion' to set aside a verdict in an action against a municipal corporation to recover for damages for personal injuries, on the ground that one of the jurors, after the trial began, visited the scene of the accident and reported to the jurors the result of his observations and the condition of the locus in quo at the time of the trial, long after the accident occurred, should not be granted where each of the jurors composing the panel deposes that his verdict was founded solely upon the evidence and the instructions of the court, and that the alleged visit paid or knowledge of the locality - of the accident by one or more of the jurors, was not discussed or argued by the jurors nor urged in their deliberations.
Motions to set aside verdicts for plaintiffs and for a new trial.
Morris Cukor, for plaintiffs.
F. K. Pendleton (Josiah A. Stover, of counsel), for defendant.

Opinion:
Erlanger, J.
After the jury rendered' their verdict and' were discharged, counsel for defendant conversed with two of them, and was informed that one of their body had since the trial began visited the scene of the accident and had reported to the jurors the result of his observations and the condition of the locus in quo at the time of the trial, long after the accident occurred; that during this conversation the name of the juror who made this visitation was not disclosed. The defendant moves to set aside the verdict in both actions upn the ground that the conduct of such juror was prejudicial to the interests of the defendant in that by such visit " the attention of the jurors was brought to facts outside of the record which might and probably did affect the verdict rendered." It is the duty of the court to set aside a verdict where it is made to appear that there has been a miscarriage of justice, but before a verdict can be nullified the proof of misconduct should be clear and convincing and not merely conjectural. . The moving affidavits in my opinion do not present a case for the favorable exercise of the court's discretion.
Each of the jurors composing the panel deposed that his verdict was founded solely upon the evidence and the instructions of the court and that " the alleged visit to or knowledge of the locality of the accident by one or more of the jurors as now claimed' by defendant was not discussed or argued by the jury nor was it urged in our deliberations."
It has been held that affidavits of jurors are not receivable to show irregularity or misconduct to impeach their verdict (Haight v. City of Elmira, 42 App. Div. 394), but that such affidavits may be read to sustain a verdict. N. Y. & N. J. Ice Lines v. Howell, 19 App. Div. 347.
It seems to me that the charge of misconduct has been fairly met and that no injustice was done. The motions to set aside the verdicts must, therefore, be denied.
Motions denied.