Magic Words Sometimes Make a Difference

Simgel Co. v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., No. B292458 (D2d8 Oct. 1, 2020)

This is a pretty ridiculous lemon law case about some very minor electrical problems regarding the power windows in a Jaguar. (Tom Magliozzi, for one, would be rolling in his grave to hear about electrical issues in a British import…) In answering the verdict form, the jury checked the box on the verdict form indicating that the car had no material defect. But, because the parties failed to indicate that a “no” answer meant the jury should stop, the jury went on to find that the Plaintiff had timely revoked acceptance and that there were $26k in rescission damages.

A $138 Mistake.

King v. California, No. B257676 (D2d1 Nov. 18, 2015)

This is an appeal of a verdict in a civil rights case. A jury awarded damages against some CHP officers it found to have unreasonably searched the plaintiff. Most of the opinion deals with civil rights stuff like the sufficiency of the evidence of unreasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and qualified immunity. The court does, however, address two minor procedural points.

First, it affirms the exclusion of expert testimony from a police policy and practice expert on relevance grounds. The expert offered testimony about CHP policy, but plaintiff didn’t sue the officers for violating policy. He sued them for violating the Fourth Amendment. And since the court didn’t need some expert say what the Fourth Amendment means, the testimony was properly excluded.

The court also affirms a very small—$138—award of economic damages over a claim of inconsistent verdicts. The jury had found no liability on battery, excessive force or similar theories, but it did find the search and seizure were unreasonable. The $138 represented plaintiff’s medical expenses incurred as a result of allegedly being roughed up during the search. The jury was instructed (without objection from defendants) that Plaintiff was entitled to compensation due to any harm incurred by the officers. Based on those instructions, it was not unreasonable or in for the jury to award the expenses as damages, even if it found no liability on claims more commonly associated with compensation for physical injuries. While the court here intimates that the instructions might have been problematic, nobody challenged them. So a denial of a new trial on inconsistency grounds would be upheld because the verdict was entirely consistent with the charge given to the jury.

Affirmed in relevant part.

Negligence vs. Causation

Bermudez v. Ciolek, No. G049510 (D4d3, as modified July 20, 2015)

In a car accident case with two defendants, the jury found both negligent, but that only Defendant #1 one was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. Defendant #1 says that the verdict forms are inconsistent so she deserves a new trial. But they aren’t. The record showed that the jury could have easily found that Defendant #2 was negligent in that he was driving at slightly above the speed limit, but that his speeding wasn’t the cause of the accident.

Defendant #1 also challenges the plaintiffs’ medical damages. As we discussed last month hospital bills generally aren’t good evidence of medical expenses, because the billed amounts have so little bearing on what ultimately gets paid, which is the proper measure of damages. At least that’s the case with insured plaintiffs, because its the leverage of the insurers that gets the providers to reduce the check to the realm of the reasonable. 

But plaintiff here isn’t insured. His bills have never been paid and the hospital still could technically try to collect on them in full. Nonetheless, the court finds that a plaintiff is generally entitled to the lesser of: (1) medical costs paid or incurred; or (2) their reasonable value. In an uninsured case, (2) requires a wide-ranging inquiry, in which the plaintiff must produce some evidence, independent of the bills, showing that the charges were reasonable. The bills aren’t per se inadmissible, but on their own they won’t carry the day. That ultimately wasn’t an issue here, because (other than a small conceded reduction) plaintiff did come forward with some other evidence.

Affirmed, except for amendment of judgment to make a minor reduction of damages.