Facts
- Lyndon P. Sharrow, an ironworker employed by G & H Steel Service, Inc., was injured while using a hoist to move a metal lockbox at a construction site.
- Sharrow sued the general contractor (Dick Corp.) and a subcontractor (Southern Steel Corp.) for negligence and violations of N.Y. Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
- The contractors filed a third-party action against G & H Steel seeking contribution and indemnification; they obtained summary judgment on common-law and contractual indemnification.
- At trial, Sharrow withdrew all claims except Labor Law § 241(6), which was submitted to the jury.
- The jury announced a verdict for Sharrow, reportedly agreed to by five jurors, finding a Labor Law violation that proximately caused injury and awarding $430,000.
- During a jury poll conducted question-by-question, one juror answered “No” on liability and stated on causation: “I was not in on that, no,” suggesting possible nonparticipation in deliberations on an issue.
- G & H Steel requested a limited inquiry to determine whether the juror had been present for and participated in deliberations on all issues; the trial court refused, reinstructed, and sent the jury back.
- The jury returned the same verdict, which was accepted without any inquiry; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to conduct a limited inquiry into a juror’s presence and participation in deliberations after polling responses reasonably suggested the juror had not deliberated on all issues.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division, vacated the judgment, and ordered a new trial.
- The trial court was required to conduct a narrow inquiry once the juror’s polling answers raised a reasonable doubt about whether all jurors participated in deliberations on all issues.
- Reinstruction and further deliberations, without first resolving whether the required number of jurors had deliberated on the issues, did not cure the defect.
Legal Principles
- In New York civil cases, a verdict may be rendered by five of six jurors, but the verdict’s validity depends on deliberation and agreement by the requisite number.
- Jury polling functions to confirm that the announced verdict reflects actual juror agreement and that the statutory voting requirement is satisfied.
- When a juror’s statements during polling reasonably suggest nonparticipation in deliberations on an issue, the trial court must conduct a limited, nonintrusive inquiry into presence and participation.
- The permitted inquiry may ask whether the juror was present during deliberations on each submitted issue and whether the juror participated, but may not probe the substance of deliberations, reasoning, or mental processes.
- Refusal to conduct any inquiry in these circumstances undermines confidence that the verdict was reached by the required number of deliberating jurors and warrants reversal.
Conclusion
Because a juror’s polling responses reasonably indicated she may not have participated in deliberations on all submitted issues, the trial court was required to conduct a limited inquiry into presence and participation; its refusal required vacatur of the judgment and a new trial.