Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Loyal Grant Price
1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2283, 336 S.W.2d 304 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A juror commits misconduct constituting reversible error by relating their own personal experiences as original evidence of material facts to other jurors during deliberations, where the misconduct is material and it reasonably appears that injury probably resulted to the appealing party.
Facts:
- On October 15, 1957, Loyal Grant Price was working on a scaffold for Port Houston Iron Works, Inc. when a sledgehammer he was using bounced back, hit him in the forehead, and knocked him to the ground, injuring his back.
- Price immediately reported the injury to his supervisor, Mr. Jackson, and the yard foreman, Mr. Gary, on the same day it occurred.
- Despite increasing back pain, Price continued to work for his employer until he was laid off, and then secured other welding jobs because he needed the income.
- Price eventually sought medical treatment from Dr. Harold J. Brelsford, who diagnosed him with a herniated disc.
- On February 3, 1958, Dr. Brelsford performed a laminectomy on Price to treat the herniated disc.
- After the operation, Price continued to experience significant pain, wore a back brace, and testified that he could no longer perform the lifting required for his trade as a welder and could not pass a pre-employment physical exam.
Procedural Posture:
- The Industrial Accident Board issued an award regarding Loyal Grant Price's workers' compensation claim.
- Price filed suit in a Texas trial court to set aside the board's award.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found that Price suffered a total and permanent disability as a result of his work injury.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price for $13,415.96.
- The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, filed motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which were overruled by the trial court.
- Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juror's introduction of their personal experiences as new evidence during deliberations to persuade other jurors on a material issue, such as the extent of a plaintiff's disability, constitute reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Collings
Yes. A juror's introduction of personal experiences as new evidence during deliberations constitutes reversible error. It is misconduct for a juror to relate to the other jurors their own personal experience as original evidence of material facts to be considered in their deliberation. In this case, the question of whether Price's incapacity was total and permanent was a close one, with conflicting evidence from Price and his own doctor. A juror shared his personal knowledge from union work, stating that companies with union contracts would not hire someone with a known back injury, and used this experience to persuade other jurors that Price's disability was total and permanent. This introduction of outside evidence was material to a key disputed issue and probably resulted in injury to the appellant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, thus requiring the judgment to be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle that jury verdicts must be based solely on the evidence presented and tested in open court. By finding reversible error in a juror's introduction of extraneous personal experience, the court protects the integrity of the trial process against verdicts influenced by un-sworn testimony that the opposing party cannot challenge or rebut. The decision underscores the importance of Rule 327 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, establishing a clear standard for when juror misconduct warrants a new trial. This precedent serves as a crucial safeguard for litigants, ensuring that their rights are decided by the evidence on the record, not by the private knowledge or experiences of individual jurors.
