34 Cal. App. 5th 45
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- On March 28, 2013 Martin Muschinske rear-ended James Stokes. Muschinske stipulated liability; the jury tried causation and damages.
- Stokes sought over $23.5 million (plus $4 million loss of consortium); defendant sought under $500,000 (plus $25,000).
- After ~2 hours of deliberation the jury awarded Stokes ~$610,537.51 in total damages (breakdowns included past medical $26,806.51 (12-0) and future medical $255,000 (10-2)); Patricia awarded $50,000 (10-2).
- Stokes moved for a new trial claiming (1) juror misconduct: Juror No. 11 (foreperson) intentionally concealed being named in two prior lawsuits during voir dire; and (2) collateral source rule violations: references to Kaiser, Medicare, Social Security improperly suggested collateral payments.
- Trial court denied the new trial motion; on appeal the court reviewed the juror-misconduct and collateral-source claims and affirmed judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct: intentional concealment of prior lawsuits by Juror No. 11 | Juror No. 11 was named in two prior suits and intentionally failed to disclose them to hide bias against plaintiffs, warranting a new trial | Juror No. 11 showed no bias; omissions were unintentional or immaterial and other jurors denied any biased statements; no prejudice shown | No misconduct found; substantial evidence supported trial court's credibility finding that omission was unintentional and not prejudicial; new trial denied |
| Juror misconduct: prejudice from foreperson's role | Stokes argued concealment by the foreperson created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice that was not overcome | Muschinske argued record rebutted prejudice (jury awards consistent with defense figures; jurors reacted reasonably to damage requests) | Presumption rebutted: verdict amounts consistent with testimony and defense positions; no showing jury reduced damages because of concealment |
| Collateral source rule: references to Kaiser (insurance) | References to Kaiser and Medicare/SSDI allowed jury to infer collateral payments and improperly reduce damages | Defendant: references were permissible background/context and experts did not deduct collateral payments; any mention was not used to offset damages | No prejudicial error: references were admissible for context; record shows no deductions for collateral payments; jury awarded exact past-medical figure proposed by defendant and reasonable future award, so no miscarriage of justice |
| Evidentiary rulings and preservation | Stokes contends trial court erred in permitting collateral-source-related questioning and overruling objections | Defense notes trial court gave limiting instruction and Stokes sometimes opened the door; also argues objections were not preserved on tentative rulings | Even assuming some references approached the line, any error was not prejudicial; jury instructions and verdict patterns rebut any inference of improper reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Barboni v. Tuomi, 210 Cal.App.4th 340 (court discretion on juror affidavit admissibility and juror-misconduct inquiry)
- Ovando v. County of Los Angeles, 159 Cal.App.4th 42 (new-trial standard for juror misconduct and prejudice)
- Tapia v. Barker, 160 Cal.App.3d 761 (failure to disclose prior suits can be misconduct; affidavits may establish misconduct when abundant)
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (collateral source rule; evidence of collateral payments generally inadmissible to reduce damages)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (weighing probative value of collateral-source evidence under Evidence Code §352)