 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mendoza v. Club Car6/5/2000
at fault.
Based on all the evidence before the court, we conclude it was reasonable for the court to believe an inconsistency existed in the special verdict between question Nos. 7 and 10, and to apply section 619. (Smith v. Smith, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d at p. 958.)
Finally, CCI's argument the verdict was not necessarily inconsistent ignores the fact the court is given the discretion to exercise its powers under section 619 if the verdict is not inconsistent, but only ambiguous. (Sparks v. Berntsen, supra, 19 Cal.2d at pp. 310-313.) The record amply supports the conclusion the verdict was at least ambiguous, allowing the court to exercise its discretion to instruct the jury to deliberate further.
Accordingly, we hold the court did not abuse its discretion in invoking section 619 and instructing the jury to deliberate further in an attempt to cure the defective verdict.
B. Wording of the Court's Inconsistency Instruction
1. Standard of review
Alleged instructional error is reviewed under the prejudicial error standard. Under this standard, the judgment is affirmed unless appellant can show an error that was so prejudicial a miscarriage of justice occurred. (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 574.)
2. Analysis
CCI takes issue with the manner in which the court instructed the jury on the inconsistency. CCI contends the language of the court's inconsistency instruction was biased against CCI and that it was improper and prejudicial to inform the jury as to the legal effect of the jury's answers to question Nos. 7 and 10.
It is true that " he action of the judge in the correction of verdicts should be taken with caution. He must not throw the weight of his influence into the deliberations of the jury as to matters exclusively within its province." (Crowe v. Sacks, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 598 [statement to jury that damages award was "grossly inadequate" held reversible error].)
Here, however, there was nothing prejudicial in the language of the instruction itself. In fact, the effort of the court in ensuring the instruction was fair and even-handed was salutary. The court told the jury it was not asking the jury to decide the matter in a certain way. It did not make any statement that it thought the jury's original answer to question No. 7 was mistaken. It explained the inconsistency clearly and concisely.
Additionally, no prejudicial error results from the fact the instruction informed the jury the legal effect of its answers. In support of this claim of error, CCI has cited the general rule nationwide that a trial court should not inform a jury about the effect of their special verdict upon the ultimate rights or liabilities of the parties. (Annot., Reversible Effect of Informing Jury of the Effect That Their Answers to Special Interrogatories or Special Issues May Have Upon Ultimate Liability or Judgment (1963) 90 A.L.R.2d 1040, 1041.) This annotation further states if such an instruction is given, it is generally held to be reversible error. (Ibid.) However, this general rule is subject to major exceptions. The most predominant is that the error is harmless if the instruction is on matters the jury became acquainted with during trial. (Id. at pp. 1051-1054.)
There is only one reported decision in California addressing this instructional issue, and none applying it to section 619. In Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 834, an accountant malpractice action, the appellant contended on appeal that the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury on the legal consequences of t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|