During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle personal injury trial, the jury foreman conducted internet research and found the Fault Determination Rules under the Insurance Act.
The jury asked a question about the regulation, prompting the trial judge to give a correcting charge instructing them to disregard it.
The jury subsequently returned a verdict finding the plaintiff 73% contributorily negligent.
The plaintiffs moved for a mistrial, arguing the jury was contaminated and failed to follow the correcting charge.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the correcting charge was sufficient, the jury's prompt disclosure of the research indicated a willingness to follow instructions, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
