 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buffett v. Vargas3/27/1996
rbon-monoxide poisoning. The administrator of her estate sued three defendants under the wrongful death statute. One defendant manufactured the furnace that allegedly caused the death. A second defendant, R&H;Enterprises, Inc., purchased the furnace from the first defendant and installed it in the house that the third defendant sold to the victim's father. Each defendant was sued for negligence and breach of implied warranty. The jury rendered verdicts in favor of all three defendants. The Court, finding error in the admission and exclusion of evidence relevant to the negligence of R&H; ordered a new trial on the claim of negligence against R&H; As for the other defendants, the Court wrote, "The warranty claims and the negligence claims against [the two other defendants] are severable from the negligence claim against R&H; Being severable and having been decided, they need not be retried."
{31} This result does not change with the adoption of comparative negligence when one defendant has been exonerated. Other jurisdictions have addressed the issue of retrial of an exonerated defendant in a comparative negligence case. In Methodist Hospitals v. Sullivan, 714 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam), the Texas Supreme Court decided, "In a multiple defendant case, when one defendant is not found negligent by the jury, and an appeals court leaves that finding intact, remand is improper for the defendant whose liability in negligence has been determined." Accord State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Pruitt, 752 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988).
{32} The Idaho Supreme Court has stated that "the test for determining whether a party can be excluded from an order for a new trial is whether there is a clear showing that the issues in the case are so distinct and separable that a party may be excluded without prejudice." Watson v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 121 Idaho 643, 827 P.2d 656, 682 (Idaho 1992) (holding that, under facts of case, juror misconduct infected verdict as to all parties); see also State v. Municipality of Anchorage, 805 P.2d 971, 974-75 (Alaska 1991) (holding in personal injury case that exonerated municipality need not be retried with codefendant State). This test is the same as New Mexico's test for determining whether a partial retrial is appropriate as to some issues but not others. See Sanchez v. Dale Bellamah Homes, Inc., 76 N.M. 526, 530-31, 417 P.2d 25, 28-29 (1966) (using same test to evaluate propriety of partial retrial on issue of damages). Thus, the Watson test fits well with our existing jurisprudence, and we adopt it.
{33} The Court of Appeals did not apply this test in determining whether it was appropriate for Mascarenas, Vargas, and Chacon to stand retrial. Consequently, on remand, the Court should first determine whether the trial court committed reversible error as to any of the issues not addressed in this opinion, for example, juror bias, alleged violation of the trial court's motion in limine, and damages, among others. Then the Court should decide whether this error, if any, infected the verdicts exonerating Mascarenas, Vargas, and Chacon.
V. CONCLUSION
{34} For the foregoing reasons we reverse the Court of Appeals. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{35} IT IS SO ORDERED.
STANLEY F. FROST, Justice
WE CONCUR:
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
|