 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co.11/7/1991
dure. The trial court agreed and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the poll validated the
jury's verdict, regardless of whatever irregularities may have occurred in voting procedure during the jury's deliberations. Butler, at 837-38.
In the present case, Johnson & Johnson alleges, on the basis of juror affidavits, that irregularities occurred in the voting procedure the jury followed. Even if the evidence of those irregularities is considered and accepted at face value, Hamilton and Butler demonstrate that the polling of the jury in open court validated the verdict.
Johnson & Johnson seeks to distinguish Butler on the grounds that there the jurors answered special interrogatories, whereas in the present case the jurors merely indicated a vote for or against the verdict. This argument is unpersuasive. The distinction Johnson & Johnson would draw between the present case and Butler cannot be drawn as regards Hamilton, where the court did not mention whether the polling was in the form of special interrogatories or a general question. This omission is not surprising inasmuch as the distinction in this context is unimportant. The trial court must assume that a juror polled in open court understands the question being asked in the poll. See Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wash. 2d at 841 (verdict may not be overturned due to jurors' misunderstanding of instructions). Presumably each juror in the present case was asked whether his or her vote was in favor of the verdict. Since 10 out of 12 jurors said the verdict was theirs, the poll validated the verdict.
Conclusion
We conclude that the trial court erred in granting Johnson & Johnson's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in ruling in the alternative that a new trial was required. The Ayerses presented sufficient evidence of causation and of inadequacy of warning to support the jury's verdict. The new trial order was inappropriate because the jury's voting procedure inhered in the verdict and because the polling in open court validated the verdict.
The Court of Appeals is affirmed. We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the verdict.
Disposition
Holding that there was sufficient evidence that the injury was proximately caused by the absence of a warning on the baby oil container, that foreseeability was not an element of the claim, that there was sufficient evidence that the oil was a dangerous product requiring an adequate warning, that the jury's voting procedure inhered in the verdict, and that the polling of the jurors in open court cured any irregularities in the voting procedure, the court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
|