 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saakyan v. Modern Auto10/31/2002
ences and illustrations in reaching their verdicts. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 316.) "What jurors can do, as a body during deliberations, is engage in experiments which amount to no more than a careful evaluation of the evidence which was presented at trial. [Citations.]" (Bell v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 919, 932, original italics.)
Considering the whole record, as we are required, together with the declarations, patently, the jury merely attempted to test the validity of Rosenbluth's theory of causation by performing activities within the lines of his demonstration and trial testimony. (People v. Bogle, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 779.) Rather than to invade a new field, the jury "used the evidence at hand to come to its own conclusion concerning the true facts." (Id. at p. 780.)
Where the jury's action was "based on evidence received in court," it committed no misconduct. (People v. Cumpian, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 317.) Therefore, the new trial motion was properly denied.
C. Mention of defendant's insurance not misconduct.
Defendant next contends the jury engaged in improper discussions of defendant's insurance coverage. Defendant further contends that such misconduct was "compounded by plaintiffs' misconduct in introducing evidence of insurance during trial." Not so.
Again, viewing the admissible portions of the jurors' affidavits (Krouse v. Graham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 80), it shows some jurors declared that insurance or the amount of insurance coverage was discussed, and one juror confirmed that "the discussion was quickly halted . . . ." (Italics added.)
" ` o establish misconduct requiring reversal, juror declarations must establish " n express agreement by the jurors to include such [consideration of insurance] in their verdict, or extensive discussion evidencing an implied agreement to that effect." [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Gorman v. Leftwich (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 141, 147, italics added; see also Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 820 [rule declarations must demonstrate express agreement applies to any impermissible category of damages].)
None of the three declarations mentioning insurance suggests " `an express agreement was reached and the discussion [they] relate could hardly be characterized as extensive.' [Citation.]" (Gorman v. Leftwich, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 147.) Likewise, we are also unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the effect of the juror's discussions about insurance coverage "was compounded by plaintiffs' misconduct in introducing evidence of insurance during trial." Defendant argues that "in the wake of the jury's disclosure that it did indeed discuss insurance coverage in deliberations, it is clear that the trial references to insurance were prejudicial." Obviously, where the jury did not meaningfully discuss insurance, and thus did not commit misconduct, its actions were not "compounded" and it was not influenced by, the mention of insurance during trial. We conclude there was no misconduct here.
D. Mention of personal experiences not misconduct.
Quoting from the declarations, defendant contends it was misconduct for the jury to interject into deliberations extraneous comments about personal experiences with disabilities and the high cost of medical care. Reversal is not warranted. "A juror does not commit misconduct merely by describing a personal experience in the course of deliberations." (Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 819.) There is no evidence the jury decided this case based on these three comments rather than on the evidence presented. Moreover, these comme
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|