You are here: / / JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION...
,

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inconsistent verdict in this Labor Law 241(6) action required a new trial. The trial court had dismissed the action. The Second Department noted that even though plaintiff was a member of an excavator crew and therefore was authorized to be within range of a moving excavator bucket he still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(k) which provides “[p]ersons shall not be . . . permitted to work in any area where they may be struck . . . by any excavation equipment.” Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator bucket:

The jury returned a verdict finding that the City defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k), but that the violation was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although the instructions on the verdict sheet directed the jury to end its deliberations if it found that the violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k) was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, the jury further found that the injured plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The jury then proceeded to apportion fault 25% to the City defendants and 75% to the injured plaintiff. After the Supreme Court instructed the jurors to reconsider its verdict, the jury returned a second verdict which was identical to the first verdict, except that the jurors did not answer the questions as to the injured plaintiff’s negligence and apportionment of fault. …

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” ( …see CPLR 4111[c] …). “On reconsideration, the jury [is] free to substantively alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention, and [is] not bound by the terms of its original verdict inasmuch as that verdict was not entered by the court” … . “Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors” . “A new trial should be granted where . . . the record demonstrates … substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict” … . Torres v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action
COPY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A SIDEWALK DEFECT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, HERE A CURB CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY, A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DESIGN DEFECT, FAILURE TO WARN AND IMPLIED WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A “HOVERBOARD” (SECOND DEPT).
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE SPECIAL DAMAGES WITH PARTICULARITY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PRIMA FACIE TORT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE FLOOR IN THE BATHROOM WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD RECENTLY BEEN MOPPED; THE DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE DID NOT PROVE THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE WARNING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS... THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH...