Opinion ID: 2084543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Inconsistent Verdict

Text: One of the grounds relied on by the trial court in invalidating the verdict at the first trial was that the original verdict was inconsistent. The trial court expressed concern that on question number three the jury found that Podolnick's negligence was not a substantial factor in decreasing Brown's life expectancy, but found him 15 percent liable for Brown's loss of chance for a cure or longer survival. The court sent the jury back to the jury room to rectify that inconsistency. When the jury returned, the jury foreperson reported to the court that, by a 7-0 vote, the jury found that Podolnick's negligence was a substantial factor in decreasing Brown's life expectancy. In granting a new trial, the trial court stated that the jury's response was a problem. The Appellate Division disagreed, observing that the jury was free to change its vote before the verdict was accepted. The Appellate Division clearly is correct. After being told that the jury verdict was inconsistent, the trial court instructed the jury that it either could change the allocation of percentages on question seven or, alternatively, change its answer to question three. The jury followed the court's instruction and returned with a new verdict that corrected the response to question three. Even though the jury's original verdict was inconsistent, the trial court appropriately reinstructed and resubmitted the questions to the jury to assur[e] consistent answers accurately reflecting the jury's findings. Roland v. Brunswick Corp., 215 N.J.Super. 240, 244, 521 A. 2d 892 (App.Div.1987) (citations omitted). We hold in high regard the capacity and integrity of juries, and have no doubt that the original jury was capable of following the trial court's curative instruction. See State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 282, 548 A. 2d 939 (1988); State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 647, 477 A. 2d 323 (1984). We have similar high expectations of jurors who are instructed to begin deliberations anew after they have already engaged in deliberations... or to disregard prior determinations in readdressing issues. Williams, supra, 113 N.J. at 632, 552 A. 2d 153 (citations omitted). The federal rules provide a similar remedy for inconsistent verdicts. Under Fed. R.Civ.P. 49(b), a district court may return the verdict to the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict, or it may order a new trial. See Wright & Miller, 9A Fed.Prac. & Proced.Civ.2d § 2513 (1995). The choice between those two options should reflect the confidence that the court has in the jury's ability to correct the inconsistency without compromising the fairness of the process. Ibid. In addition, the federal rule grants the trial court broad discretion in resolving any inconsistencies between the interrogatory answers and the general verdict, and the interrogatory answers themselves. Stephen S. Korniczky & Don W. Martens, Verdict FormsA Peek Into the Black Box, 23 AIPLA Q.J. 617, 625 (Fall 1995). The trial court must make every attempt to harmonize the jury's answers to the interrogatories under a fair reading of the jury's answers to determine whether they are consistent. Id. at 626-27 (footnotes omitted). We are fully satisfied that the trial court remedied the inconsistency in the initial verdict sheet by properly sending the jury back to the jury room for further deliberations.