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
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).
With Regard to the Suit Against the Perpetrator, Perpetrator’s Criminal Conviction Barred Relitigation in the Wrongful Death Case Stemming from a Stabbing Outside Defendant Bar/With Regard to the Suit Against Defendant Bar, Questions of Fact Raised About the Foreseeability of the Attack, the Proximate Cause of the Injury, and the Adequacy of Defendant Bar’s Security Measures
BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, APPELLATE COURT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SELLERS.
Criteria for a Change of Venue Not Met—Party Seeking Change Must First Demonstrate Existing Venue Is Improper
Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained
INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE.
ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN A NEGLECT PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, FAMILY COURT TO ISSUE REPLACEMENT ORDER FROM WHICH AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET LOADING DOCK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-322.1 (1) APPLIES ONLY TO NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING, NOT TO CLEANING SERVICES (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...