Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
State Farm office in Downtown Baltimore, Aug. 20, 2020. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A New Jersey appeals court ruling sheds light on the proper judicial response when a jury returns a verdict that is riddled with inconsistencies.

When a jury verdict is returned with conflicting answers, the trial judge should discuss the inconsistency with jurors and elicit information to clarify the jury’s intent or possible confusion, the appeals court said Monday in a motorist’s dispute with an insurance carrier.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Charles Toutant

Charles Toutant is a litigation writer for the New Jersey Law Journal.

More from this author

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

New Jersey Medical Malpractice LawBook

Comprehensive, yet clear and concise look at New Jersey law regarding medical malpractice liability.

Get More Information

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.