Sharrow v. Dick Corp.

86 N.Y.2d 54, 629 N.Y.S.2d 980, 653 N.E.2d 1150 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sharrow v. Dick Corp.

New York Court of Appeals
86 N.Y.2d 54, 629 N.Y.S.2d 980, 653 N.E.2d 1150 (1995)

Facts

Lyndon Sharrow (plaintiff) was employed by G&H Steel Service, Inc. (G&H) (defendant) while working on a construction project. Sharrow sued Dick Corporation (defendant), the project’s general contractor, and Southern Steel Corporation (Southern) (defendant), the project’s subcontractor, alleging violations of New York’s labor law. Dick and Southern brought contribution and indemnification claims against G&H. Before trial, Dick and Southern won summary judgment against G&H. Sharrow’s labor-law claim proceeded to trial before a six-member jury. At the conclusion of the jury’s deliberations, the foreperson announced that five jurors found that Dick and Southern proximately caused Sharrow’s injuries and awarded damages. At G&H’s request, the clerk asked each juror for his or her answer to each verdict-sheet interrogatory. With respect to the first question (whether Dick or Southern violated the Labor Law), juror number five answered no. With respect to the second question (whether the labor-law violation proximately caused Sharrow’s injuries), juror number five’s answer was unclear, but the juror appeared to answer no. With respect to the third question (compensatory damages), juror number five did not immediately answer. With respect to the remaining questions (regarding specific damages items and Sharrow’s possible negligence), juror number five stated that she had no response. Before the court discharged the jury, G&H asserted that juror number five’s answers suggested that this juror may not have participated in deliberations after the jury resolved question one. G&H further asserted that it was deprived of its constitutional right to a trial by six jurors if juror number five did not fully deliberate. G&H thus asked the supreme court to inquire about the extent of juror number five’s deliberations. The court declined G&H’s request and entered judgment for Sharrow. The appellate division rejected Dick, Southern, and G&H’s claim about being denied their constitutional right to a trial by a six-member jury because juror number five may not have fully participated in deliberations. Dick, Southern, and G&H appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Simons, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership