## Facts

- Julio Diniero, a seaman and junior third assistant engineer aboard the S.S. *Pioneer Land*, claimed he repeatedly injured his back between April and September 1954 while operating a “blow-down valve” in the ship’s fresh-water system.
- The valve was located below a floor plate and ordinarily could be operated through a slot using a “reach rod.”
- Diniero alleged the reach rod was unavailable and the valve was defective, requiring him to remove the floor plate, crouch, and use a wrench to turn the valve wheel.
- He claimed these repeated efforts caused a ruptured disc requiring surgical fusion and disc removal.
- United States Lines denied the valve was defective or that removal of the floor plate and use of a wrench were necessary, and disputed causation, pointing to evidence of possible degenerative disc disease.
- At trial, the court used a general verdict with written interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b); the jury found a key interrogatory confusing and could not agree on an answer even after the judge attempted clarification.
- The judge withdrew all interrogatories and allowed deliberations to proceed solely toward a general verdict; the jury later returned a general verdict for Diniero.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(b), a trial judge abuses discretion by withdrawing previously submitted written interrogatories after the jury reports confusion and inability to agree, and submitting the case solely on a general verdict.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Diniero.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion by withdrawing the interrogatories after they generated confusion.
- The court treated the withdrawn interrogatory as confusing and not necessary to reach a verdict, leaving the general verdict as a valid basis for judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 49(b) permits a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories as an aid to deliberations; it does not eliminate the trial judge’s discretion to manage the verdict mechanism when interrogatories prove unworkable.
- A trial judge may withdraw interrogatories submitted under Rule 49(b) to cure jury confusion caused by unclear or ambiguous questions.
- Withdrawing an interrogatory is improper only if it removes from the jury an issue of fact necessary to the verdict or necessary for the plaintiff to recover.
- A confusing, poorly drafted interrogatory that is not essential to the verdict may be withdrawn without violating Rule 49(b), and the case may proceed to a general verdict.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld a plaintiff’s general verdict where the district court, confronted with jury confusion over an ambiguous Rule 49(b) interrogatory, withdrew the interrogatories and allowed the jury to decide the case by general verdict because the withdrawn question was not necessary to the verdict.


Diniero v. United States Lines Co., 288 F.2d 595 (2d Cir. 1961)