 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Oppen12/4/2002
g. Some of the other jurors were of the same opinion, but we felt bound on our agreement. We had to stay with the average amount.
Since we had all agreed that this method should be used I went along with the decision when we returned to the court room, even though I, and some of the others did not agree with the results. We thought we were bound by our agreement to go by the average of the percentages.
I would never have voted that Charles Hamilton was not to receive any damages if I had not believed I was bound by my agreement to go with the average amount. Had I not agreed in advance to be bound, the jury would probably still be sitting there if the others would not agree to give him some sort of an award.
Hamilton's attorney then hired a private investigator to interview the other jurors regarding the jury deliberations. The investigator obtained affidavits from four of the other jurors. One of the jurors stated, " t was decided that the average percentage would be the final, and I agreed to this." Another juror stated, " n deciding the verdict in this case, the percentages were all averaged to arrive[ ] at the final percentages of fault. The final percentages were binding." Another explained, " n deciding the verdict in this case to determine the percentage of fault, each juror took a piece of paper and wrote down what we thought the percentage should be, many times over. These percentages were added together and then divided by ten for an average percentage. We all agreed this was the way it would be done." Another juror added, " e did this by, several times, taking individual anonymous surveys from each member and averaging the percentage."
In support of the motion for new trial, Hamilton's attorney submitted the five juror affidavits and an affidavit from the private investigator stating in substance that none of the jurors she spoke with disputed the accuracy of the initial juror affidavit obtained by Hamilton's attorney. Hamilton's attorney did not request an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court did not hold one to question any of the jurors. The court noted the jury was given the quotient verdict instruction and concluded, based on the evidence before it, that the jury did not act "in defiance of or opposition to the Quotient Verdict instruction issued by the court."
None of the juror affidavits unequivocally establish that the jury agreed in advance to be bound by the result of the computation of the percentages of fault. The initial affidavit, relied upon most heavily by Hamilton, speaks of "disagreement as to the percentages" of fault, which indicates thoughtful deliberation by the jurors and strongly suggests there was no advance agreement to use the averaging method and to be bound by the result of the computation. The absence of a prior agreement to be bound by the result of the computation is also evidenced by the affidavits of the two jurors who stated the individual estimates of fault were averaged multiple times. The juror's statement that " ince we had all agreed that this method should be used I went along with the decision when we returned to the court room" can be interpreted as a reference to the court's polling of the jurors in the courtroom and to that individual juror's feeling bound by the verdict reached by unanimous agreement.
The strongest evidence that there was no agreement in advance is a question submitted to the court by the jury during its deliberations:
If we vote on #2
Charles 62%
Robert 34%
Other 4%
Does Charles get any money? & do we need to procede ?
The trial court answered "no" to each questio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 North Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|