 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
ed verdict in plaintiffs' favor on their claims that Joadd had no workers' compensation insurance or valid contractor's license. While reading an instruction about these determinations (Special Instruction No. 10), the court inadvertently added language stating that it had found Joadd was the employer of Davila and Barraza. This was erroneous because the employer issue was disputed at trial. Defendants' primary defense theory at trial was that Rodriguez-and not Joadd-was Davila's and Barraza's employer.
At a break a few minutes later, Barraza's counsel informed the court that it had erred, and asked the court to correct the error, stating, " ne thing that should be clarified, it's pretty important. When you are reading . . . Special Number 10 . . . [ ] . . . [ ] You said that you found the workers were employees of Joadd and you deferred that for the jury. What you found was there was no work[ers'] comp. [ ] . . . [ ] We need to clarify that is the jury issue." The court apologized, and the parties then went off the record. However, when the court continued reading the jury instructions, it neglected to correct its error. At noon, the court concluded the jury instructions and sent the jury to the deliberations room.
Two and one-half hours later, the jury sent a note stating, " ere defendants involved in a joint venture? Need definition or clarification as to what is a joint venture." During discussion about how to answer the question, Louies' counsel raised the issue of the court's prior misstatement: " ust for the record, I wanted to ask the court to put on the record what the court is going to do regarding the Special Instruction Number 10."
The court responded that it would instruct the jury as to its prior incorrect instruction and then read the correct instruction. The Louies' counsel said, "I understand that," and Barraza's counsel stated, " o problem. We agree to that. I think that resolves the problem." The jury was then brought into the courtroom and the following proceedings took place.
"The Court: . . . I had you come back up. I made an error in reading an instruction to you, in giving the instructions this morning. I want to clarify it. [ ] . . . [ ] . . . I'll have the court reporter read that instruction 10, special jury instruction 10, and this is what I told you and I'm going to tell you that it was an error and I'll read to you the proper instruction."
"(The record was read by the reporter.)"
"The Court:That was incorrect. Here is the instruction I'm going to read to you:
"'If you find that . . . Joadd Construction was the employer of Daniel Davila and Michael Barraza, and you further find that Joadd Construction did not possess a valid contractor's license on July 26th, 1996, there is a conclusive presumption that the hirer of Joadd Construction is also the employer of Daniel Davila and Michael Barraza. The court did find, the court has found that Joadd Construction did not possess a valid contractor's license on July 26, 1996.'"
"That is the instruction and not what I had read to you earlier." (Italics added.)
One of the jurors then asked whether there was a limit to the exhibits that could be requested. The court responded that the jury was entitled to all the exhibits and the exhibits would be brought into the jury room. Later that day, the jury sent another note requesting several additional exhibits, but the court denied this request because the requested documents had not been admitted into evidence. At the end of that day, the jury reached a verdict.
2. Analysis
The Louies contend the court erred in initially instructing the jury that Joadd was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|