Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
Alexandra BROWN., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Winona Brown; Winona Brown; Sean Brown., Plaintiffs, v. Linda X., M.D., Linda X., M.D., Inc., General Medical Center, a Corporation, and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants.
March 2005.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (Medical Malpractice/Birth Injury)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. THE IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS – JURY AFFIDAVITS
II. THE ISSUE OF INFORMED CONSENT
III. THE ISSUE OF VERDICT BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
IV. DAMAGES
V. CONCLUSION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
On December 8, 2004 the jury rendered a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor. As set forth below the verdict is supported by substantial evidence and law. On or about January 3, 2005 the Court entered judgment on the verdict.
Plaintiffs will address each issue raised by the defendants in the order in which they were advanced in the Motion for New Trial.
THE IRREGULARITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS – JURY AFFIDAVITS
The four juror declarations submitted by the defendant are replete with discussions about the juror mental processes. The Evidence Code states in unequivocal terms that such evidence is inadmissible.
(a) Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct; condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.
Evidence Code § 1150(a).
The juror’s attack on himself because he voted a certain way so that deliberations can be concluded is inadmissible. A juror’s opinion on the foreman’s state of mind is inadmissible. A juror’s opinion on the mental stability of another juror is inadmissible. A juror’s opinion that there were time pressures is inadmissible. A juror’s opinion that he was surprised that some jurors had made up their minds or were predisposed is inadmissible. Submission of this evidence by the moving party is improper.
To the extent the trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of juror misconduct, we agree with such conclusion. The statements in Larsen’s declaration that Much consideration was given by many of the jurors to the loss of earnings which plaintiff sustained as a result of his lost college, and during deliberations, a substantial part of the discussion included the loss of earnings plaintiff supposedly sustained, do not describe any improper juror conduct and appellant does not appear to contend such discussions were improper. As the jury was instructed on the issues of loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, discussion and consideration of such issues was proper. (See Part 2 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.