Julio Diniero v. United States Lines Company
4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 819, 288 F.2d 595, 91 A.L.R. 2d 770 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b), a trial judge has the implied discretionary power to withdraw written interrogatories previously submitted to a jury, and this decision is reviewable for an abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- Julio Diniero, an engineer aboard the S.S. Pioneer Land, was owned by United States Lines Company.
- Between April and September 1954, Diniero's duties included operating a blow-down valve located under a floor plate.
- Diniero alleged that because of a missing reach rod and a defective valve, he had to repeatedly remove the floor plate, crouch, and use a wrench to turn the valve.
- He claimed this difficult and repeated physical exertion caused a ruptured disc in his back.
- United States Lines Company disputed Diniero's account, arguing the valve was not defective and did not require the actions Diniero described.
- The company also contended that Diniero's back condition was a pre-existing degenerative disease, unrelated to his work on the vessel.
Procedural Posture:
- Julio Diniero filed suit against United States Lines Company in federal trial court.
- Following an eight-day trial, the judge submitted the case to the jury with instructions for a general verdict and eight written interrogatories.
- The jury sent notes to the judge indicating confusion over the first interrogatory and later stating they could not agree on it.
- In response, the trial judge withdrew all the interrogatories and instructed the jury to render a general verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Diniero for $46,150.
- United States Lines Company (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Diniero as the appellee.
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 trial judge, under F.R.Civ.P. 49(b), have the discretion to withdraw written interrogatories from the jury after deliberations have begun, particularly when the interrogatories are causing confusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Medina, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A trial judge has the discretion to withdraw written interrogatories from a jury after they have been submitted. The power to withdraw interrogatories is implied from the express power to submit them under F.R.Civ.P. 49(b). The court found no abuse of discretion in this case because the first interrogatory submitted to the jury was inherently ambiguous and caused evident confusion. The jury explicitly asked for clarification of the question, and after the judge's attempt to explain it, they reported they were deadlocked on that specific question. The court reasoned that withdrawing a confusing and improperly worded interrogatory is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent a verdict based on a misunderstanding. This differs from withdrawing a clear and material interrogatory, which might constitute an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a federal trial judge's power under F.R.Civ.P. 49(b) includes the implied authority to withdraw special interrogatories after jury deliberations have commenced. It sets the standard of review for such a decision as abuse of discretion, providing judges with a mechanism to remedy confusing or poorly framed questions during deliberation. This holding promotes judicial efficiency by allowing a trial to proceed to a general verdict rather than forcing a mistrial due to confusion over interrogatories, but it also cautions that this discretion is not unlimited and withdrawing proper, material questions may be reversible error.
