Opinion ID: 2317903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Course of Submission of Agency and Fraud Questions to the Jury

Text: Patently this case called for particular disposition of various disputed issues by the jury, where submission was proper. In the absence thereof in this case, we are posed with the difficulties of severability of the verdict. Terminal contends that some of the counts, in which the principal elements of recovery were advanced, are uncontroverted in quantity and therefore the judgment may be molded. Of this, more will be said. It is observed that severability would be a simple matter in a complex case of this character, where money damages alone are sought, each different count claiming a separate sum, had the trial court, at or independent of the request of counsel, applied either former Rule 3:49-1 (now R.R. 4:50-1) or former Rule 3:49-2 (now R.R. 4:50-2). This case was ripe, at the trial level, for resort to either the method of special findings or the method of general verdict together with written interrogatories upon the several issues of fact. Special verdicts and interrogatories contain many valuable potentialities. See Abbott's Civil Jury Trials ( Viesselman, 5 th ed. 1935), ch. XXVII, pp. 951 et seq. One of the functions of special verdicts is to aid in the disposition of a case on review proceedings. They permit use on such review of special findings in the appellate courts in immediate disposition without the necessity of a remand for a retrial of all issues, or at least a reduction of the retrial to the portions of the judgment affected by the error. They enable errors to be localized so that the sound portions of the verdicts may be saved. 3 Moore's Federal Practice (1938), sec. 49.01, p. 3097. However, our disposition of this case on this appeal does reduce to a minimum of fringe items the elements of the case which will require a retrial.
In the first count of the complaint, as contained by the terms of the pretrial order, Terminal sought the difference, at the contract (and bid) unit rate, between sums stated by it and sums determined by the engineer, for bulk items, namely earth excavation, earth embankment, structural steel and fabricated steel. The issues of agency and fraud were left to the jury and the Superior Court, Appellate Division, held that this was error. The questions involved include the questions whether either the trial court or the Appellate Division erred in this respect under the pertinent principles of law, hereinbefore discussed. In respect of agency in this matter, while Mr. Ivan L. Bogert was chosen by Bogert-Childs as the project engineer and remained such during the entire conduct of the work, its employee, Mr. Robert A. Lincoln was resident engineer, i.e., the engineer in charge of the field at the job. The authority does not deny that Mr. Lincoln was a duly authorized representative of Bogert-Childs. As such, Mr. Lincoln's services in relation to the project were performed as Engineer, under the definition of that term in Article 1 of the contract.