• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
(914) 220-1086

Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC

Just another WordPress site

  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
      • Daniel F. Gallivan
      • Thomas L. Gallivan
      • James C. Freeman
      • Andrew J. Gilbride
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Car Accident Lawyers
      • Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
      • Slip & Fall Lawyers
      • Truck Accident Lawyers
      • Wrongful Death Lawyers
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
      • Uber Accident Lawyers
    • Nursing Home Abuse
      • Bedsores and Pressure Ulcers
      • Bruises and Cuts
      • Elopement
      • Falls & Broken Bones
      • Group Home Abuse
      • Infections
      • Malnutrition
      • Physical Abuse
    • Criminal Defense
    • Medical Malpractice
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Notable Cases
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
      • Daniel F. Gallivan
      • Thomas L. Gallivan
      • James C. Freeman
      • Andrew J. Gilbride
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Car Accident Lawyers
      • Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
      • Slip & Fall Lawyers
      • Truck Accident Lawyers
      • Wrongful Death Lawyers
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
      • Uber Accident Lawyers
    • Nursing Home Abuse
      • Bedsores and Pressure Ulcers
      • Bruises and Cuts
      • Elopement
      • Falls & Broken Bones
      • Group Home Abuse
      • Infections
      • Malnutrition
      • Physical Abuse
    • Criminal Defense
    • Medical Malpractice
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Notable Cases
  • Contact Us
Call
Contact
Blog
Home  /  Personal Injury Law  /  New Trial Ordered in Brooklyn Car Accident Case After Jury Verdict Sheet Deemed Unclear

New Trial Ordered in Brooklyn Car Accident Case After Jury Verdict Sheet Deemed Unclear

by Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC 26 Nov2014

In Ki Tak Song v Oizumit the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a jury verdict for the defendants and ordered a new trial after it found that the jury was confused when filling out its verdict sheet. The Plaintiff, Ki Tak Song, was suing the plaintiffs Yoko Oizumi and Daniel Oizumi for personal injuries he allegedly suffered in a car accident. Daniel Oizumi was driving Yoko Oizumi’s vehicle when it allegedly struck Song’s vehicle from the rear. The jury originally found that the defendant’s were negligent but that their negligence was not a substantial factor causing the injury to Song. Song’s appeal was based on the fact that the jury had filled out two copies of the verdict sheet and that there was evidence that they were confused as to the questions on the first sheet.

A verdict sheet is presented to jurors after the completion of a trial and it presents them with questions about the case which they must answer. In this case the answers on the first verdict sheet were inconsistent. The court had, without further instructions to the jury and without consulting the parties, given the jury a second verdict sheet despite the fact that the answers on the first sheet were internally inconsistant. The plaintiff appealed claiming that the verdict was a product of jury confusion and is inherently inconsistent as a matter of law.

After the verdict was entered the court informed the parties that the verdict was based on answers given by the jury on a second verdict sheet because the jury had been confused by the first verdict sheet and had made a mistake on it. The court told the parties that they had instructed the court officer to give the jury another copy of the verdict sheet to the jury without convening the jury or speaking directly to it. Therefore there was no chance for the court to give the jury instructions on properly filling out the sheet or on the meaning of the questions contained within it. There was also no chance for the parties to challenge any instructions made or examine the first verdict sheet.
The court at this time told the parties that the jury was “scratching out on the first page” and that the jurors would be initialing the mistakes it had made on the first sheet. However, when the party’s saw the first verdict sheet after the verdict was entered they saw that what the jury had done was not a simple mistake but a change which covered up an inconsistency on the first sheet. The first sheet asked the jurors “Were the defendants negligent?” next to the question was one signature, normally all jurors will check off either yes or no and sign. Also next to the question all the jurors had put an X next to the answer “no” and a check mark next to the answer “yes.” The “yes” was then crossed out and initialed next to.

The form also asked the jurors “Was the negligence of the defendants a substantial factor in causing the accident?” Next to this question the jurors had written an X next to no. However, the instructions told them that if they decided the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident then they should not answer the subsequent questions including one which allocated blame between the defendants and the plaintiff. They went on to answer these questions, allotting 20% of the blame to the defendants. This implies that the instructions on the form were unclear.

While juries have a right to alter their verdict if it is recorded incorrectly so that it matches their true intentions in this case the court found that because the first sheet was internally inconsistent, and because the jury had failed to initial several of the questions, the Supreme Court had erred in failing to direct the jury to reconsider its original verdict before giving the second verdict sheet to the jury. Therefore the Appellate Court ordered that the judgment be reversed and the case sent for a new trial.

Ki Tak Song v Oizumi, 2014 NY Slip Op 05775

Posted in: Personal Injury Law, Miscellaneous, Motor Vehicle Accidents

Primary Sidebar

Get In Touch

Practice Areas

Personal Injury

  • Wrongful Death
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Trucking Accidents
  • Pedestrian Accidents
  • Construction Accidents
  • Scaffolding Accidents
  • Slip, Trip & Falls (Premises Liability)
  • Negligent Supervision at a School or Day Care
  • Sidewalk Falls
  • Elevator Accidents
  • Train and Subway Accidents

Nursing Home Neglect & Abuse

  • Bedsores (Pressure Ulcers)
  • Falls & Fractures
  • Malnutrition and Dehydration
  • Physical and Sexual Abuse
  • Wandering & Elopement
  • Unexplained Bruises and Cuts
  • Infection
  • Choking Incidents
  • Medication Errors
  • Group Homes
  • Assisted Living Facilities

Criminal/DWI Defense

  • DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
  • Criminal Defense
  • Traffic Violations
  • DMV Refusal Hearings
  • Sex Crimes
  • Shoplifting & Larceny
  • Assault & Vehicular Assault
  • Drug Possession
  • Drug Sales
  • Weapons Charges
  • Domestic Violence
  • How is a DWI Defined in New York?
  • Is the Driver’s License Confiscated Immediately Upon a DWI Arrest?

Medical Malpractice

  • Failure to Diagnose Cancer
  • Birth Injuries (Gynecological, Obstetrical)
  • Medication Errors
  • Surgical Errors
  • Gastric Bypass Surgery Errors
  • Emergency Room Errors
  • Failure to Diagnose Heart Attack or Stroke
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Erbs Palsy Birth Injury

Trusts + Estates

  • Wills & Trusts
  • Divorce, Child Support, Custody Issues
  • Elder Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Guardianships
  • Medicaid-Planning
  • Power of Attorney / Health Care Proxy
  • Probate and Estate Administration
  • Surrogate Court Litigation
  • Real Estate
  • Business Formation
  • Wills
  • Will Contests

View All Practice Areas

View All Blogs

CLIENT TESTIMONIALS

" Last year I was injured in an accident, and for the first time, needed the advice of an attorney regarding how to proceed. I was referred to Thomas Gallivan through a family member who is a lawyer in Massachusetts. I am beyond pleased with how Thomas handled my case. He was knowledgeable, professional, and although the case was not as straightforward as some, he used every resource to ensure a positive outcome. Thomas communicated with me regularly and I felt completely informed and confident in his ability. He expertly negotiated a fair settlement that I was very happy with. The entire experience was extremely positive, during a stressful time for me. Thank you Thomas. "

Melanie

" Attorney Thomas Gallivan is a wonderful attorney!! I particularly liked his professionalism, consistency, always kept us updated on the case, and available upon request. He worked extremely hard and was persistent on getting the best settlement in a timely matter. I truly appreciated his prompt responsiveness to emails and phone calls. The office staff was very pleasant and made sure to get messages to him asap. Glad we chose this law firm, would highly recommend and in the event that we ever need an attorney again, Gallivan & Gallivan would be my primary choice. "

Katherine R.

" I was a passenger on a motorcycle and ended up falling off the back of the bike due to the driver acting like an idiot. I fell off at a high rate of speed and was very banged up. Fractured wrist and road rash down my back and elbows. I am lucky I didnt die. Not knowing what to do I contacted Thomas and he could not have been anymore helpful!! He went out of his way to meet with me. He actually came to my house for the initial consultation. I know nothing about law or what my options even were. He took me through everything step by step. "

Colin W.

View All Testimonials

245 Main St Suite 450 White Plains, NY 10601

Phone:
(914) 220-1086

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

555 5th Ave 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Toll Free:
(855) 228-7369

(By Appointment Only)

1370 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556

Phone:
(914) 594-6820

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

12 1st St
Riverhead, NY 11901

Phone:
(914) 825-5855

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Copyright © 2022, Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC