Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

Faced with the twin facts that jurors are allowed great freedom in their conduct of deliberations and that a court can never know exactly what influences resulted in a particular verdict, our judicial system has established certain presumptions for reviewing allegations of juror misconduct. Jurors ordinarily are presumed to have followed the court’s instructions. (People v. Sanchez, (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 834, 852, (111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 129, 29 P. 3d 209]; Craddock v. Kmart Corp., (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1300, 1308, [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 881].) The California Supreme Court has consistently stated that on appeal, [w]e must of course, presume that the jury followed [the trial court’s] instructions… People v. Chavez, (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 778, 790, [329 P.2d 907].)… In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption [that the jury adhered to the limiting instructions] will control. (People v. Beach, (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d 612, 625, (195 Cal. Rptr. 3811.) (People v. Zack, (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 409, 416, [229 Cal. Rptr. 317].)

On the other hand, [j]uror misconduct such as the receipt of information about a party or the case that was not part of the evidence received at trial, leads to a presumption that the defendant was prejudiced thereby and may establish juror bias. (People v. Nesler, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at p. 578.) To succeed [on a claim of jury misconduct, a party] must show misconduct on the part of a juror; if he does, prejudice is presumed; [the opposing party] must then rebut the presumption or lose the verdict. (People v. Marshall, supra, 50 Cal. 3d at p. 949.)

The presumption of prejudice in a civil case is rebutted if the reviewing court reaches one of three conclusions: (1) the record establishes the absence of prejudice; (2) a review of the entire record shows there is no reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party under the constitutional standard of People v. Watson, (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 818, 836, [299 P.2d 243]. (See Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 388, 416-417, [185 Cal. Rptr. 654, 650 P. 2d 1171]: McDonald v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 256, 265, [83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 7341); or (3), in the case of possible actual bias of a juror whose vote may have been determinative of the verdict there is no substantial likelihood that at least one juror was impermissibly influenced.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

The Complaint alleges a number of causes of action beside negligence regarding the child including a separate cause of action for the father, DAVID WHITE, for bystander emotional distress pursuant to Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644.

The hospital, GENERAL HOSPITAL and various physicians have now filed a motion for summary adjudication on the father’s bystander emotional distress action.

Contrary to the motion, the father does not have to be aware of medical negligence to allege bystander emotional distress – he directly viewed the injury. The father saw the injured minor while the minor was suffering from a continuing injury a continuing lack of oxygen. The motion for summary adjudication is absolutely wrong; the father need not be aware of medical negligence – or internal physiological processes – to witness the incident. What the Supreme Court required was that the father be present at the scene of the injury-producing. event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim … (Emphasis added.) (Thing, 48 Cal.3d at p. 667-668.) The father does not have to be a medical expert and determine that there was medical negligence. The Supreme Court was clear: [W]e by no means suggest… that plaintiff must be aware of the tortuous nature of defendant’s actions … [Such requirement would lead to the anomalous result that a mother who viewer her child being struck by a car could not recover because she did not realize that the driver was intoxicated. (Emphasis added.) (Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159, 170.)

All that is necessary is that the father be present for the injury-producing event and then know there is an injury: [W]e conclude it is not necessary that a plaintiff bystander actually have witnessed the infliction of injury to her child, provided that the plaintiff was at the scene of the accident and was sensorially aware, in some important way, of the accident and the necessarily inflicted injury to her child. (Emphasis added.) (Wilks v. Hor (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 264, 1271.) Here, the father was aware – in some important way – of the injury to the minor.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

Interestingly, there is little decisional law on the question of what is proper discussion among jurors during deliberations, and the few cases are quite ancient. In Baker v. Borello, (1902) 136 Cal. 160, the California Supreme Court approved an instruction which told the jurors to deliberate in light of their general knowledge on the subject. Jurors, in weighing evidence, always exercise their judgment in the light of their own general knowledge of the subject in hand, whether instructed to do so or not; and a judgment will not be reversed whether they are or are not so instructed. Wagner v. Doulton, (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 945, 949 [169 Cal. Rptr. 550].

The court in Wagner concluded: We believe the appropriate rule has been well articulated by an opinion of a sister state: In determining what is proper and what is improper discussion among jurors, regard must be had for the fact that the jury are supposedly men (and women] of different walks of life, avocations, and necessarily views that would be affected by their past experiences and situations. They could hardly arrive at a solution of their differences without discussion of the facts before them, and each man’s discussion would necessarily be tinged or affected by his own viewpoint and experience. Frazer v. State, (1924) 99 Tex. Grim. 89, (112 Cal. App. 3d at p. 950.); English v. Linn, (1994) 26 Cal. 4th 1358, 1364

Jury deliberations are secret while they are occurring. No verbatim transcript or other record of the deliberations normally exists. Declarations seeking to reconstruct deliberations after the fact may be colored by the jurors’ natural inclination to protect or attack the process that resulted in the verdict depending on whether the juror agreed or disagreed with the verdict. (See Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 98, 108-109, [95 Cal. Rptr. 516 485, P.2d 1132].) Yet, the parties’ right to a jury trial is one of constitutional dimension, and we give great deference to a verdict issued by a properly instructed jury – in the normal case, without any inquiry whatsoever into the processes used to reach that verdict. Even when there are allegations of jury misconduct evidence of the jurors’ mental processes is, with narrow exceptions, excluded from consideration of the right to a new trial. (In re Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal. 4th at pp. 294-295.)

Continue Reading ›