Blake v. Shellstrom
2012 Ark. 428
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Appellant Blake appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 59 motion for new trial after a two-day jury trial in a personal-injury action against Shellstrom, Whitten, and Metropolitan; a verdict awarded Blake $10,400, and Blake’s son $10,000 against Shellstrom.
- During deliberations, affidavits from foreperson Huyard and juror Brown alleged jurors discussed that Blake would have health insurance through his federal employment to cover medical expenses, and a note about health insurance was not delivered to the court.
- Blake asserted juror misconduct and an overall inadequate verdict; appellees argued the affidavits are inadmissible under Rule 606(b) and that the verdict should not be disturbed, especially since collateral-source instructions were not requested.
- The trial court held a hearing, reserved ruling, and eventually denied Blake’s motion by a one-sentence order; Blake timely appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed, and this court granted review.
- The court weighs Rule 59(a)(2) standards for juror misconduct and Rule 59(a)(5) standards for damages, reviewing for abuse of discretion and whether a reasonable juror could have reached the damages awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror health-insurance discussions constitute misconduct warranting a new trial | Blake | Shellstrom | No reversible error; affidavits fail extraneous-information exception |
| Whether juror affidavits are admissible under Rule 606(b) and prejudicial | Blake | Shellstrom | Affidavits not within extraneous-information exception; insufficient to show prejudice |
| Whether the damages award was clearly inadequate such as to require a new trial | Blake | Shellstrom | No abuse of discretion; verdicts on damages not subject to speculation given the general-verdict form |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430 (2001) (juror-misconduct basis for new trial; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Sunrise Enters., Inc. v. Mid-S. Rd. Builders, Inc., 337 Ark. 6 (1999) (prejudice and standard for new-trial review)
- Witherspoon v. State, 322 Ark. 376 (1995) (extraneous-information exception allows juror outside knowledge testimony)
- Watkins v. Taylor Seed Farms, Inc., 295 Ark. 291 (1988) (extraneous information from outside source to jury deliberations)
- Luedemann v. Wade, 323 Ark. 161 (1996) (evaluation of damages and weighing of evidence)
- Kempner v. Schulte, 318 Ark. 433 (1994) (no strict mathematical formula for damages; appellate deference to jury verdicts)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Davis, 347 Ark. 566 (2002) (review of damages in personal-injury cases; general-verdict implications)
- Esry v. Carden, 328 Ark. 153 (1997) (limits on appellate review of jury-damages calculations)
- Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n v. Garrett, 304 Ark. 679 (1991) (ambiguities in verdict forms and review standards)