 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Carbon9/24/1991
shoulder strain injury or a herniated disk injury, and the treatment for each injury. It determined which expert to believe, what injury the accident caused, and awarded damages accordingly. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence are matters which rest within the province of the jury. Retail Clerks Health & Welfare Trust Funds v. Shopland Supermarket, Inc., 96 Wash. 2d 939, 640 P.2d 1051 (1982).
II
Juror Misconduct
Next, Mr. Johnson contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. Mr. Johnson first contends the jurors brought in outside evidence when they speculated why Mr. Johnson kept a separate house. Even if the discussion took place, that fact is not significant unless it is tied to a specific action by the jury. Here the affidavits show neither a specific action by the jury nor a preexisting bias or prejudice.
Next, Mr. Johnson contends it was improper for the jurors to discuss their personal experiences with respect to injuries, including herniated disks. Here, the discussions are not prejudicial, they are within the realm of life experiences a juror is expected to bring into deliberations. The individual or collective thought processes leading to a verdict "'inhere in the verdict'" and cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict. State v. Ng, 110 Wash. 2d 32, 43, 750 P.2d 632 (1988).
Determination of juror misconduct is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse. State v. Young, 89 Wash. 2d 613, 630, 574 P.2d 1171, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870 (1978). In
determining whether there is misconduct, the trial court must determine if extraneous matter considered by the jurors inheres in the verdict. If it does, it may not be considered in support of a motion for a new trial. If it does not, it may be considered. Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wash. 2d 836, 841, 376 P.2d 651, 379 P.2d 918 (1962). The effect of misconduct is for the trial court to decide. Halverson v. Anderson, 82 Wash. 2d 746, 752, 513 P.2d 827 (1973). The trial court found the issues raised by the affidavits inhered in the verdict and were not sufficient to show misconduct. In ruling, the trial court stated:
A jury deliberation is supposed to be an opportunity for 12 people of common sense to get together to weigh the evidence, to sort it out within the context of common sense, which necessarily includes their past experiences, and their life experiences, and their passions and their prejudices. If their passions and prejudices get out of line, we have something to deal with. I see no indication of that here other than a low verdict, which could be explained otherwise.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined no jury misconduct had occurred. Denial of the motion for a new trial was proper.
We find no error. The decision of the trial court and the judgment on the verdict are affirmed.
Disposition
Holding that the defendant's cross examination and evidence concerning the cause of one of the plaintiff's medical conditions was proper and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no juror misconduct had occurred, the court affirms the judgment.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|