A verdict rendered by an Orange County jury in a slip and fall case was upheld on appeal last month despite claims by the injured party's attorney that there had been juror misconduct. The verdict in favor of the defendant homeowners and the trial court's decision not to grant a new trial trial were affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals despite evidence that the defense verdict was reached after the jury wrongfully considered evidence of liability insurance against the trial court's instructions.
According to one juror, the jury discussed the belief that the plaintiff must have already been paid on a homeowner's insurance claim by an insurance company for the slip and fall injury that was the subject of the case. The jury reportedly wondered aloud and was concerned that a verdict in the injured party's favor would be a ‘double recovery.’
The Alleged Misconduct and The Law
Assuming the jury was of the misimpression that a verdict for the injured party would be a "double recovery" because of prior insurance payments, it would be representative of one of the most unsettling facets of a jury trial. Every juror enters the deliberation room with their own life experience and perceptions as to how the civil justice system works. There is little to nothing the attorneys in the case can do about that. However, the jurors are instructed by the court at the close of a civil trial to follow the law and are specifically told their training or experience is not a part of the evidence to be given consideration. In other words, jurors are supposed to consider ONLY the law and the facts presented within the four walls of the courtroom, and the alleged misconduct above demonstrates why this is so important.
Evidence of Insurance Is Inadmissible
Under California law, a civil jury cannot consider whether any of the parties in a case has insurance, and they are specifically instructed that insurance is totally irrelevant. Any juror in the above case who may have believed the plaintiff would receive a double recovery by way of a favorable verdict would be grossly misinformed. The homeowner's insurance company has a duty to defend and indemnify the homeowner relative to personal injury claims and lawsuits. The homeowner's insurance carrier essentially steps into the shoes of the homeowner for purposes of paying claims or a verdict. In other words, the injured party generally can recover from only one source and not both. This is known as the single satisfaction rule, and it prevents unjust enrichment to a party to a lawsuit.
The complexities of premises liability law, jury trials and insurance-related matters are best left to experienced injury trial attorneys. If you have been injured in a slip and fall or other accident, it may be in your best interests to contact an Orange County injury lawyer for advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment