Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A New Jersey appellate court held that a trial court had not erred in denying a plaintiffs’ motion for new trial in a case in which a juror admitted after the verdict that he previously had been to the defendant’s home to bid on a landscaping job.

Here, a jury found for the defense in a medical negligence lawsuit. After the verdict, it was revealed that a juror had admitted that he had previously been to the defendant’s home to bid on landscape work. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that a motion for new trial may be granted where a juror omitted or falsified information during voir dire that was potentially prejudicial and, if disclosed, would provide counsel a reasonable basis for exercising a peremptory challenge. Here, the court said, there is no evidence that the juror had been influenced in any way by preparing a landscaping bid for the defendant, whom he did not meet or speak with. Moreover, the court said that the juror had not remembered that he had been to the defendant’s home until he was reminded of this by a colleague and that the juror had shown no signs of bias. Noting that the trial judge is the person who makes any determination of possible juror prejudice, the court concluded that the judge had not erred in determining that the juror was credible and that the plaintiffs had not suffered prejudice resulting from the juror’s acquaintance with the defendant.

Citation: Graziano v. Ibrahim, 2020 WL 996648 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 2, 2020).