 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mohan v. Exxon Corp.2/10/1998
The jury in this civil case returned a verdict but failed to respond to two written interrogatories which required answers to dispose of the remaining issues in the case. Nevertheless, the jury was dismissed and dispersed. Four days later the trial Judge reconvened the jury and instructed the jurors to respond to the two interrogatories. The jury resumed deliberations and reached a verdict. We hold on this appeal that the reconvening of the dismissed and dispersed jury was plain error, and accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial limited to the issues decided after reconvening the jury.
The relevant facts are not complex. On October 9, 1987, plaintiff Shawn Mohan (Mohan) was sixteen years old and employed by defendant Exxon Corporation (Exxon) to pump gasoline at a gasoline station owned and operated by Exxon. After pumping gasoline into a customer's automobile, Mohan was removing the hose to return it to one of the station's pumps when the metal "swivel" connecting the hose nozzle to the hose separated. This caused the nozzle to separate from the hose, which caused gasoline to discharge from the hose's open end and spray onto Mohan's clothing. After completing the sale transaction, Mohan walked toward the station's office to change out of his gasoline-soaked uniform. On the way, defendant Johnny Jones (Jones) a "bystander" on the station's premises, lit and threw a match at Mohan, setting his clothing on fire. Mohan was severely burned.
Mohan and Vasa Mohan, his father, sued Exxon and others. Exxon settled with Mohan for $440,000, and Exxon continued its contribution action against Husky Corporation (Husky), which had designed and manufactured the swivel, and Thunder Nozzles, Inc. (Thunder or Thunder Nozzles), which had inspected the station's pumps on October 9, 1987.
On Friday, April 19, 1996, the jury returned its verdict by answering a nine-question verdict sheet. In answer to question nine, the jury apportioned 70% of the liability to Exxon and 30% to Jones. The jury, however, did not answer questions three and four, which addressed Exxon's design-defect claim against Husky.
The jury's verdict was taken by the court clerk. After responding to questions one through eight, excluding questions three and four, the jury foreperson announced the jury's answer to question nine:
COURT CLERK: On question number nine; what amount of liability do you attribute to Husky Corporation?
JURY FORELADY: Oh, percentages?
Yes.
JURY FORELADY: Husky zero.
COURT CLERK: As to Exxon Corporation?
JURY FORELADY: Seventy.
COURT CLERK: As to Thunder Nozzles?
JURY FORELADY: Zero.
COURT CLERK: As to Johnny Jones?
JURY FORELADY: Thirty.
COURT CLERK: And, is that verdict unanimous?
JURY FORELADY: Say that again?
Well, that -- that's not a verdict. That's -- okay, that's all right.
COURT CLERK: You can be seated.
The trial Judge then announced:
All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we thank you; we thank you for your time; we thank you for the sacrifices that you've made. The litigants thank you, because they have had an opportunity to fully present to you the facts of this case. We've had an opportunity to analyze those facts, and to resolve the issue.
So, with that you're excused.
After the jury was dismissed by the Judge, Exxon's counsel requested an opportunity to see the verdict sheet. He observed that the jury had failed to answer interrogatories three and four. This information was conveyed to the Judge,
Page 1 2 3 4 New Jersey Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|