Diniero v. United States Lines Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961 · Civil Procedure

288 F.2d 595 (2d Cir. 1961)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureRule 49(b)Special interrogatoriesJury verdictsFRCP 49(b)interrogatoriesgeneral verdictwithdrawal of interrogatories

Facts

The plaintiff, a seaman, claimed he injured his back by repeatedly operating a blow-down valve under difficult conditions aboard the defendant's ship, while the shipowner disputed both the conditions and causation. At the close of the evidence, the trial judge submitted eight written questions to the jury under Rule 49(b), including a first question asking whether the plaintiff injured himself aboard ship because he had to remove floor plates, crouch, and use a wrench to operate the valve. During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification of the word "had" in question one, and after the judge attempted to explain it, the jury reported that it could not agree on that question. The judge then withdrew all the questions and instructed the jury to return a general verdict, after which the jury found for the plaintiff.

Issue

Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b) permit a trial judge to withdraw written interrogatories after they have been submitted to the jury and deliberations have begun? If so, did the judge abuse his discretion by withdrawing the interrogatories in this case after the jury was unable to agree on question one?

Rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b)'s express authorization for a trial judge to submit written interrogatories implies a power to withdraw them in proper cases. The decision to withdraw interrogatories is committed to the trial judge's discretion but is reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion; withdrawal is permissible where an interrogatory is unclear or ambiguous and its withdrawal is necessary to eliminate jury confusion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in federal court in Cleveland, the judge submits a general verdict form plus six written interrogatories under Rule 49(b). During deliberations, the jury sends a note saying one interrogatory uses the phrase "required to" in a way they cannot understand, and after a brief reinstruction the confusion remains.

If the judge withdraws all the interrogatories and directs the jury to continue deliberating on a general verdict alone, which is the strongest argument that the ruling is permissible?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 49(b)'s express authorization to submit written interrogatories carries an implied power to withdraw them in proper cases. That authority is not unlimited, but it may be used where a question is unclear and causing confusion. The other choices overstate, add a consent requirement not recognized by the opinion, or contradict the holding.