 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Conway v. Blackburn6/13/2005
d to contest the jurors' thought processes, including their motives, the effect of evidence or weight put on evidence, or their intentions or beliefs. Gardner, 60 Wn.2d at 841; Chiappetta v. Bahr, 111 Wn. App. 536, 540-41, 46 P.3d 797 (2002). Blackburn argues that these statements go to the juror's thought processes and motives, which makes them inhere in the verdict.
In Chiappetta, the plaintiff sought a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 540. There, the court instructed the jury to consider the police officer's actions under a reasonably careful person standard, as amended to include special standards for authorized emergency vehicles. Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 543. By way of affidavit, one juror said 'let's put ourselves in a police uniform, and consider if it was safe for a policeman to be driving the pursuit route at 60 miles an hour or more, with his training and observation skills.' Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 543. Another juror was 'surprised there were any restrictions on the police pursuing somebody thought to have violated the law, as it is a police officer's duty to pursue and apprehend law breakers.' Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 543-44.
The court found that both comments 'relate to the mental processes of the jurors, inhere in the verdict, and may not be considered by the court.' Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 544. This was so even though the affidavits showed that the jurors did not follow the standard of care set out in the court's instructions. The Chiappetta court noted that 'evidence that a juror misunderstood or failed to follow the court's instructions inheres in the verdict and may not be considered.' Chiappetta, 111 Wn. App. at 541. See also State v. McKenzie, 56 Wn.2d 897, 900, 355 P.2d 834 (1960) (holding that juror's affidavit that another juror argued the law contrary to the court's instruction inhered in the verdict and was not properly considered by the trial court).
Likewise, the jurors' statements here about Conway's fault relate to their mental processes, motives, and decisionmaking considerations in reaching their verdicts. Thus, these statements inhere in the verdict and cannot properly be considered. This is true even though the duty allegedly imposed on Conway by the jury may not exist under the law and comparative negligence was not an issue.
Conway's argument that introduction of an erroneous statement of law constitutes misconduct is not well supported by the case law. Conway cites Adkins, 110 Wn.2d at 137, which held that '{j}ury misconduct also results where a juror provides the jury with erroneous statements of law.' But Adkins cited only to Bouton-Perkins Lumber Co. v. Huston, 81 Wn. 678, 143 P. 146 (1914). In Bouton-Perkins, the juror brought in a pamphlet purporting to contain relevant statutory authority. Bouton-Perkins, 81 Wn. at 680. The Bouton-Perkins court noted that '{a}ll the cases we have been able to find hold it to be prejudicial error, or misconduct requiring a new trial for a jury to consult law books while deliberating on their verdict.'
Bouton-Perkins, 81 Wn. at 682. Unlike in Bouton-Perkins, the jurors here did not bring in a statute or other 'law book.' Rather, they made up the duty without using such a reference. Conway's citation to Adkins for the general proposition that erroneous statements of law result in jury misconduct is not compelling on these facts.
Conway additionally argues that courts traditionally protect the jury from erroneous statements of law. Conway argues, citing cases, that if Blackburn's attorney had argued such a duty to the jury, the trial court would have had to sustain an objection and give a curative instruction. That is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|