Rogue Juror!

Nodal v. Cal-West Rain, Inc., No. B285482 (D2d6 Jul. 17, 2019)

Unlike in federal court and most other states, in California the affidavit of a juror is admissible in connection with a new trial motion to establish juror misconduct. The testimony needs to be about object acts and statements—a juror’s affidavit about his or her thought processes is improper and inadmissible. Evid. Code § 1150. If misconduct is proven, a presumption or prejudice arises. Unless that is rebutted, the moving party is entitled to a new trial.

This is a PI case involving a blown valve in a vineyard irrigation system. According to the affidavits of two jurors, another juror, who was a farmer and pipe-fitter with 35 years’ experience* told the rest of the jury during deliberations that the system was set up the way anyone in the industry would have done it, so the blown valve must have been the vineyard’s fault. The jury then rendered a 9-3 defense verdict finding that the manufacturer was not negligent.

Although jurors can bring their common sense to bear in their deliberations, they aren’t supposed to be providing freelance expert testimony. So the juror’s statements were clear misconduct. And since the manufacturer did not rebut the presumption of prejudice, a new trial should have been granted.

Reversed.

*FWIW, it would have to be a pretty freaky venire for most lawyers to leave a highly experienced agricultural pipe-fitter on the jury in a case about malfunctioning irrigation equipment.