## Facts

- Jorgensen sued York Ice Machinery Corp. for negligence, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused during installation and testing of a shipboard refrigerating system.
- Jorgensen worked as a plumber and steamfitter at Jakobson’s Shipyards in New York and assisted with installation on a United States transport vessel.
- York was installing the refrigerating plant under contract connected to U.S. Navy requirements.
- The system used “Freon” gas; when exposed to flame, Freon could break down into toxic substances (including phosgene and related gases).
- The shipboard plant included an engine room (small, no windows) connected to a cooling room by open doorways.
- After installation, the piping had to be tested for leaks; York followed a testing method that included introducing Freon and using a small lamp at joints to detect escaping gas by a colored flame.
- Jorgensen claimed the test was dangerous and/or performed improperly, and that he was harmed by exposure to toxic gases produced during testing.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for York, and judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.
- Just before deliberations, the jury foreman learned that his son had died and asked the court to postpone deliberations; the request was denied.
- After the verdict, Jorgensen moved for a new trial, offering juror affidavits stating the jurors agreed to accept a simple majority vote to finish quickly so the foreman could leave.
- The trial judge denied the motion for a new trial, and Jorgensen appealed to the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court later denied certiorari.

## Issues

1. May a civil verdict be set aside based on juror affidavits describing internal deliberations—specifically an alleged agreement to be bound by a majority vote rather than reach unanimity?
2. Did the district court commit reversible error in denying a new trial and in the challenged rulings at trial (including claimed lack of evidentiary support, improper summation, and asserted error in the jury instructions)?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for York and affirmed the order denying a new trial.
- The court held that juror affidavits offered to show an internal method of reaching the verdict (including an alleged agreement to decide by majority vote) could not be used to impeach the verdict.
- The court further found no reversible error in the remaining trial claims raised on appeal, including challenges to the evidence, counsel’s summation, and the jury charge.
- Certiorari was denied. *Jorgensen v. York Ice Mach. Corp.*, 332 U.S. 764, 68 S.Ct. 69 (1947) (mem.).

## Legal Principles

- Jurors generally may not impeach their verdict by later testimony or affidavits describing what occurred in the jury room, including deliberations, mental processes, or the manner in which agreement was reached.
- An alleged internal agreement among jurors to depart from the court’s instructions (such as treating a majority vote as sufficient) is an internal deliberation matter; without admissible proof, it does not justify setting aside the verdict.
- Courts are more willing to consider post-verdict proof of outside influence or extraneous information, but not proof aimed at the jury’s internal discussions and decision process.
- On review of a jury verdict in a negligence case, an appellate court will not disturb the verdict where the record allows a reasonable finding for the prevailing party and no prejudicial trial error is shown.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit left the defense verdict intact, ruling that Jorgensen could not use juror affidavits recounting an alleged majority-vote agreement—made after the foreman learned of his son’s death and sought to end deliberations quickly—to overturn the verdict, because such affidavits improperly probe internal jury deliberations; the court also rejected Jorgensen’s remaining claims of trial error and affirmed the denial of a new trial.


Jorgensen v. York Ice Machinery Corp., 160 F.2d 432, 332 U.S. 764, 68 S.Ct. 69 (1947)