Client Advisory

Rachel S. Rubenstein, Matt Choi

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey clarified in Guerini v. Vin-Rick Builders that, under the “invited error” doctrine, it will not overturn a jury’s verdict based on erroneous jury instructions or an inappropriate verdict sheet where the appealing party “induced, encouraged or acquiesced in or consented to” them at trial.

Guerini v. Vin-Rick Builders involved a plumber, plaintiff Guerini, who was injured due to alleged faulty staircase guardrails while performing work in a condominium building. Among the parties that Guerini sued was Hutch Grove, the contractor that retained Guerini’s employer to perform plumbing work in the building, and Vin-Rick, a contractor performing separate construction work in the building.  Hutch Grove and Vin-Rick both contended the other was the construction’s general contractor. At trial, the jury found that Hutch Grove was the general contractor and assigned it 95% of the liability.  Hutch Grove appealed, arguing that the Court had erred in its jury instructions and verdict sheet because, contrary to the law, it instructed that finding that Hutch Grove was the construction’s general contractor was sufficient to find it liable if it had “negligently managed safety” and/or “negligently failed to make sure a safety program was being implemented.”

The Appellate Division confirmed that the instruction was incorrect but nevertheless affirmed the trial court’s decision under the “invited error” doctrine.  The Court noted that though in the absence of an objection, verdict sheets and jury instructions are reviewed for “plain error,” where such errors were “induced, encouraged or acquiesced in or consented to” by a party, that party is “barred from raising an objection for the first time on appeal.”

The Court recounted Hutch Grove’s counsel’s opening statement and closing statements, in which he framed the issues in the case much the same way the trial court had in its instructions.  The Court therefore found that because the jury instructions and verdict sheet mirrored its trial strategy, Hutch Grove had assented to these jury instructions.  Accordingly, the Court held that Hutch Grove’s relief was barred by the invited error doctrine.

Key takeaways: This case serves as a reminder that, if a party chooses a streamlined trial strategy by focusing on a single argument or defense, it should nonetheless ensure that other potential defenses are built into the jury instructions, or timely object to instructions that omit them.