7. Is the appellate court likely to hear the cyclist's appeal?

In both federal and state litigation, the party who loses at trial generally has the right to appeal the adverse judgment. Generally, only final orders are reviewable on appeal. Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 3 and 4, an appeal may be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the district court within 30 days from the entry of the judgment. A final order is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits, by rendering final judgment not only as to all the parties but as to all causes of action involved.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 48(c) allows for jury polling, stating that, «[a]fter a verdict is returned but before the jury is discharged, the court must on a party's request, or may on its own, poll the jurors individually. If the poll reveals a lack of unanimity or lack of assent by the number of jurors that the parties stipulated to, the court may direct the jury to deliberate further or may order a new trial.»

An order for a new trial is not considered a final judgment in the federal system. See Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543 (1947) (finding that «for a judgment of an appellate court to be final and reviewable for this purpose, it must end the litigation by fully determining the rights of the parties, so that nothing remains to be done by the trial court. .. . Thus, where the effect of the state court's direction is to grant a new trial, the judgment will not be final»).

In the famous Erie decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law on the substantive issues of the case, including state common law.

D is correct. The court of appeals should dismiss the cyclist's appeal because it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. After polling the jurors and discovering they were not unanimous on the issue of the cyclist's level of care and contributory negligence, a new trial was ordered. This means that there was no final judgment, but rather, an impending new trial. For the appellate court to have proper jurisdiction, the appeal must be from a final order on all the causes of action involved in the case.

A is incorrect. FRCP 48(c) allows for a trial court to order a new trial (OR direct jurors to deliberate further) if, after polling the jurors individually, it is revealed that there was a lack of unanimity. This is exactly what occurred here when the trial court ordered a new trial, even though it could have chosen to instruct the jury to deliberate further. Subsequently, the new trial order was not an error and would not succeed as an appellate argument.

B is incorrect. This case was a diversity action in federal court, which means that under Erie, state substantive law would apply. As such, it is irrelevant whether contributory negligence is a defense to a negligence action in federal court. Only State A law will apply, and there is no indication in the facts that such a defense does not exist.

C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. FRCP 48(c) does allow for a federal court to poll the jury on its own. Therefore, the trial judge's decision to individually poll the jurors was proper and an argument that it was improper would not succeed on appeal.