Forde v. Ames
| Decision Date | 23 January 1978 |
| Citation | 93 Misc.2d 723,401 N.Y.S.2d 965 |
| Parties | Regina C. FORDE, Plaintiff, v. Anne B. AMES and Irving Ames, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The jury in this automobile negligence case returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20,000.00 after a full trial. In the course of the report and recording of the verdict it appeared that the jury had voted 5 to 1 (Juror # 3 dissenting) in finding liability of the defendants and also 5 to 1 (Juror # 4 dissenting) as to the quantum of damages. This Court now has before it the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the evidence, as excessive and as inconsistent.
The verdict was consonant with and amply supported by the evidence and its amount is entirely justified thereby. These branches of the post-verdict motion require no further comment.
The substantive question is whether the verdict is vulnerable because the same five jurors did not join in determining liability and in assessing damages. Murphy v. Sherman Transfer Co., 62 Misc.2d 960, 310 N.Y.S.2d 891 (App. Term, 1st Dept., 1970) answers this question in the affirmative on the ground that "(a) general verdict is an indivisible entity and it cannot readily be separated into its component elements", 62 Misc.2d at p. 961, 310 N.Y.S.2d at p. 892. But the court noted that "(t)he situation might have been different if the issues of liability and damages had been, by order, tried separately . . . Then, any 10 jurors making for a valid verdict need not be the same with respect to each of their votes on the separated issues of liability and damages."
Whether that distinction is indeed valid has been questioned by Professor McLaughlin in 22 Syracuse Law Review 87 et seq. and more intensively criticized by Professor Siegel in his commentary at pages 82-83 in the current (1977-78) supplement to McKinney's Civil Practice Law and Rules at section 4113. As he says:
In Ward v. Weekes, 107 N.J.Super. 351, 258 A.2d 379, the court held that although the same ten of twelve jurors did not agree on issues of liability and damages, the ten-two jury verdict on each issue was valid. In so doing the court said (258 A.2d at 380):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schabe v. Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist.
...N.E.2d 182). The trial courts have divided on the question (compare Aiello v. Wenke, 118 Misc.2d 1068, 462 N.Y.S.2d 949; Forde v. Ames, 93 Misc.2d 723, 401 N.Y.S.2d 965; Reed v. Cook, 103 N.Y.S.2d 539; PJI 1:96, 1:97 with Cohen v. Levin, 110 Misc.2d 464, 442 N.Y.S.2d 851; Murphy v. Sherman ......
-
Hendrix v. Docusort, Inc., 69281
...jurors honestly and conscientiously to decide the remaining issues.' (Ward v. Weekes (1969) 107 N.J.Super. 351 ; see also Forde v. Ames, (1978) 93 Misc. 2d 723 .)" The court, in adopting this position, indicated it believed that the any majority rule better achieves the policy behind statut......
-
Williams v. James, SHOP-RITE
...a juror who found both parties negligent could not be barred from participating in the assessment of damages); Forde v. Ames, 93 Misc.2d 723, 401 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1978) (same five jurors did not have to agree on the issues of liability and damages); Fields v. Volkswagen of America, ......
-
United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court
...without resorting to such a mechanistic rule that needlessly increases the likelihood of costly mistrials." In Forde v. Ames (1978) 93 N.Y.Misc.2d 723, 401 N.Y.S.2d 965, 966-967, an automobile negligence case arising in New York, the court "The appropriate assumption in a case such as this ......
-
Table of Cases
...NYS2d 238, 244 (1973), §10:22 Ford v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson , 140 AD2d 666, 528 NYS2d 1019 (2d Dept 1988), §9:81 Forde v. Ames , 93 Misc 2d 723, 401 NYS2d 965 (Sup Ct Nassau County 1978), §34:20 Forman v. McFadden , 44 AD3d 523, 844 NYs2d 217 (1st Dept 2007), §32:03 Forrester v. Port ......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...in a bifurcated trial where the damages phase was tried a few days later before the same jury; this case was cited by Forde v. Ames , 93 Misc2d 723, 401 NYS2d 965 (Sup Ct Nassau County 1978) for the proposition that it is not proper to poll a jury as to each issue involved in its arriving a......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...in a bifurcated trial where the damages phase was tried a few days later before the same jury; this case was cited by Forde v. Ames , 93 Misc2d 723, 401 NYS2d 965 (Sup Ct Nassau County 1978) for the proposition that it is not proper to poll a jury as to each issue involved in its arriving a......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...in a bifurcated trial where the damages phase was tried a few days later before the same jury; this case was cited by Forde v. Ames , 93 Misc2d 723, 401 NYS2d 965 (Sup Ct Nassau County 1978) for the proposition that it is not proper to poll a jury as to each issue involved in its arriving a......