Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc.

New Jersey Court of Common Pleas · 1941 · Civil Procedure

19 N.J. Misc. 455 (1941)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil Procedureverdictmolding verdictambiguous verdictinformal verdictnew trialsurplusagejury intent

Facts

The pleadings presented issues of defendants' negligence and the contributory negligence of plaintiff's decedent. The jury was instructed that if contributory negligence by plaintiff's decedent was established, any comparison of the parties' degrees of negligence was immaterial. In the judge's absence, the jury returned a verdict stating there was negligence on the part of both parties, that the defendant was more negligent than the plaintiff, and recommending an award of $2,000 to the plaintiff against both defendants. Both sides challenged the verdict, the plaintiff attacking its substance and the defendants its form.

Issue

Whether the court could treat the damages portion of the verdict as surplusage and mold the verdict into a defense verdict, or whether the verdict was so inconsistent and ambiguous that it had to be set aside and a new trial granted.

Rule

A verdict must be responsive to the issues submitted. A court may and should mold an informal verdict so that it is formal and effective only when the jury's real purpose and intent clearly, sufficiently, and convincingly appears. If the verdict is uncertain, ambiguous, self-contradictory, or defective in substance rather than form, it cannot be molded, and the court may not substitute its own verdict.

🔒

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 Newark, the only issues submitted to the jury were whether Midtown Parcel Delivery was negligent and, if so, the amount of Dana Ruiz's damages. The jury returned a written verdict stating, "We find for Dana Ruiz against Midtown Parcel Delivery in the amount of $18,000, and we urge the parties to remain on good terms in the future."

How should the court treat the verdict?

Explanation. A court may disregard language in a verdict that is dehors the issues submitted, so long as the jury's actual decision on the issues is clear. Here, liability and damages are plainly resolved in Dana's favor, and the added comment about future relations is outside the issues. Because the verdict's true substance clearly appears, the court should enter judgment on the liability-and-damages finding and treat the recommendation as surplusage. (Derived from Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc. (1941).)