Practice point: Immediately after receiving the verdict in this personal injury action,
an off-the-record discussion with the jury revealed that they had
consulted an online dictionary to define the term "substantial."
The Appellate Division determined that, regardless of whether the jury was discharged, the trial court properly engaged
in an inquiry regarding external influences on the jury. Further, the court properly determined that
the jury's act of consulting an outside dictionary on a term critical to
its decision constitutes misconduct warranting a mistrial, especially
since the foreperson indicated that the jury was "confused" about the
term "substantial" and the court was unable to give curative
instructions.
Student note: However, because the jury's misconduct related only to the issue of
liability, and there is no evidence that it affected the jury's
determination on damages, the Appellate Division reinstated the verdict on damages.
Case: Olshantesky v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 02685 (1st Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Vacating defaults, and law office failure.
