Jorgensen v. York Ice MacHinery Corporation
160 F.2d 432, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2623 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury verdict will not be set aside due to internal irregularities in deliberation, such as a compromise agreement to abide by a majority vote to end deliberations, even when motivated by a juror's personal emergency. Such compromises are considered inherent defects of the jury system and do not rise to the level of misconduct that would warrant a new trial.
Facts:
- Jorgensen, a plumber and steamfitter, was helping install an ice machine on a United States transport ship as an employee of Jakobson's Shipyards.
- The defendant, York Ice Machinery Corp., was under contract with the U.S. Navy to install the refrigerating plant.
- The installation process required testing for leaks using a refrigerant gas called 'Freon,' which becomes highly toxic if ignited in large quantities.
- Jorgensen alleged that the defendant's employee, Trinka, negligently allowed him to bring a large blow-torch into the engine room during a Freon test.
- Jorgensen claimed this blow-torch ignited a substantial amount of escaped Freon, causing him to be suffocated, suffer lung damage, and fall, injuring his shoulder.
- Trinka testified that Jorgensen was not in the engine room at the time of the incident and that there was no blow-torch present.
Procedural Posture:
- Jorgensen (plaintiff) sued the defendant in federal trial court for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing Jorgensen's complaint based on the jury's verdict.
- Jorgensen filed a motion for a new trial, primarily arguing that the jury engaged in misconduct during deliberations.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Jorgensen (appellant) appealed both the judgment and the order denying a new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's agreement to render a verdict by majority vote, prompted by a desire to accommodate a juror's personal emergency, constitute juror misconduct sufficient to require a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - L. Hand
No, a jury's agreement to render a verdict by majority vote, even when motivated by a juror's personal emergency, does not constitute misconduct sufficient to require a new trial. The court, while accepting the jurors' affidavits for the sake of argument, reasoned that the jury system is inherently imperfect and cannot be held to a standard of absolute perfection. Judge Hand distinguished between severe misconduct that would invalidate a verdict—such as bribery, juror drunkenness, or exposure to extraneous information—and lesser internal irregularities that are part of the system's fabric. The court classified the jury's compromise, where they agreed to adopt the majority's 7-5 vote to allow the grieving foreman to go home, as such a lesser irregularity. This type of compromise is akin to a 'quotient verdict,' which has been upheld, and is considered one of the 'defects... so deeply enmeshed in the system that wholly to disentangle them would quite kill it.' Therefore, the trial judge's discretion in refusing to grant a new trial was not in error.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle of jury finality and demonstrates the judiciary's profound reluctance to scrutinize the internal deliberations of a jury. By treating the jury's decision-making process as a 'black box,' the court prioritizes the stability and survival of the jury institution over the pursuit of a perfect, bias-free verdict in every case. Judge Hand's opinion pragmatically accepts that human factors and compromises are inevitable and distinguishes them from external corrupting influences. This decision reinforces the high bar for overturning a verdict based on juror misconduct, limiting such challenges to cases involving external tampering or egregious internal behavior like intoxication, not the pressures and compromises of deliberation.
