Kerlin ex rel. RJK v. Hunt
2013 OK CIV APP 83
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2013Background
- Mother Susan Kerlin, as next friend of RJK, sues Hunt for injuries from a crosswalk collision in April 2009; Plaintiff seeks damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering.
- Evidence at trial shows RJK incurred medical expenses totaling $50,774.93; Hunt offered no separate medical testimony.
- Trial occurred May 2010; jury found RJK 58% negligent? No, the verdict shows plaintiff’s damages awarded as $10,000 with RJK’s and Hunt’s contributory negligence apportioned (Mother’s damages tied to the medical expenses).
- Post-trial, the court instructed jurors and accepted a verdict form; it polled jurors to determine if the $10,000 included medical expenses; jurors answered yes.
- During deliberations the jury asked questions about out-of-pocket medical expenses and the judge later engaged in an ex parte discussion with the jury after discharge; the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial on December 28, 2010.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding ex parte communications and ambiguity in the verdict warrant remand for a new trial on damages only, and required redaction of collateral source information at retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages award for RJK and Mother was legally inadequate. | Kerlin asserts the $10,000 verdict inadequately compensates medical expenses and pain and suffering. | Hunt argues the verdict, including medical expenses, was supported by the trial record and jurors’ polling. | Remand for a new trial on damages only; verdict inadequate and ambiguous. |
| Whether collateral source evidence affected the verdict. | Plaintiffs contend improper consideration of Mother's medical insurance occurred. | Defendant maintains instructions allowed consideration of medical expenses; no improper use shown. | Remand with instruction to prevent improper collateral source evidence at retrial. |
| Whether the ex parte post-verdict jury discussion compromised fairness. | Post-verdict ex parte communication tainted jury outcome and undermined fair trial rights. | No reversible error; discussion occurred after discharge but was not used to undermine decision. | Abuse of discretion; requires reversal and new trial on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 154 P.3d 1240 (Okla. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial denial; broad discretion with due process limits)
- Downum v. Muskogee Stockyards & Livestock Auction, Inc., 565 P.2d 368 (Okla. 1977) (post-verdict affidavits to impeach verdict generally inappropriate; public policy concerns)
- Walkings v. State, 906 A.2d 511 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) (ex parte communications with jurors; need for on-record proceedings and participant presence)