 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lara v. Buckley Boradcasting Corporation of Monterey1/30/2002
JNOV or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the grounds, among others, that the jury's findings on negligence were inconsistent with some of its findings on the other causes of action, the jury had been improperly influenced by numerous instances of misconduct by Lara's counsel during closing argument, and the jurors had themselves committed misconduct in various forms. The court denied the motions and entered judgment for Lara as against Buckley only. Buckley has appealed (case No. F034194). Clemons joins in the appeal insofar as the court denied her request for costs.
Lara has filed a separate appeal challenging the court's denial of her request for attorney fees and costs (case No. F034053). We have consolidated the two appeals.
DISCUSSION
Appeal by Buckley Broadcasting (F034194)
As noted, the jury found in Lara's favor only on the fourth cause of action, which alleged Buckley had neglected to properly train and supervise its management personnel (Clemons and McCarty) with regard to sexual harassment. Buckley contends the jury's finding is inconsistent with the evidence, with its findings on the other causes of action, and with the jurors' intentions as revealed by their posttrial declarations. Specifically, Buckley argues it was entitled to judgment on the fourth cause of action, notwithstanding the verdict, because the evidence establishes as a matter of law that Lara's emotional distress injuries, if any, were not caused by Buckley's negligence, and because the evidence fails to establish Lara's injuries were genuine. Alternatively, Buckley argues it was at least entitled to a new trial because the verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent as to whether the company's negligence was the proximate cause of Lara's injuries, and because of misconduct by Lara's counsel, the jury, and the court. We consider these issues in turn. But first we address the jurors' declarations and conclude, as the trial court did, that they may not be used to impeach or interpret the jury's verdict.
1. Juror Declarations
In connection with its motions for JNOV and new trial, Buckley submitted the declarations of 10 jurors to support its claim the jury had committed various acts of misconduct, and to bolster its argument the jury's special verdicts were inconsistent. Buckley cites these declarations here for the same purposes.
All 10 declarations are very similar in content and assert generally that the non-economic damages award for negligent training and supervision was intended to "send a message to Buckley Broadcasting" that " t should have done harassment training," and the amount was a compromise among the jurors as to how much it would take to get the company's "attention." Thus, the primary import of the declarations is to show the award was more punitive than compensatory. The declarations also assert the jurors intended to award Lara just enough money to pay her attorney fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.
Lara responded by submitting counter-declarations by four of the ten jurors, in which they generally denied having committed misconduct.
In denying Buckley's JNOV and new trial motions, the trial court ruled that those portions of the declarations purporting to describe how the jury arrived at its damages award were inadmissible under section 1150 of the Evidence Code. We review the court's determination for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Perez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 893, 906.)
Evidence Code section 1150 provides in part:
"(a) Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, condit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|