Tillery v. Richland
158 Cal. App. 3d 957, 205 Cal. Rptr. 191, 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2376 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Juror affidavits may only be used to impeach a verdict by showing objectively ascertainable overt acts of misconduct, not by exposing the jurors' subjective mental processes, reasoning, or transient comments made during deliberations.
Facts:
- Mrs. Tillery, 67, was hospitalized for severe back pain under the care of Dr. Rothman, who ordered back and chest X-rays.
- Dr. Rothman brought in Dr. Richland, a neurosurgeon, for a consultation regarding possible surgery.
- The chest X-ray report indicated a possible cancerous tumor in Mrs. Tillery's lung, and Dr. Rothman informed Dr. Richland of this finding.
- Dr. Richland recommended and performed a laminectomy (back surgery) to relieve Mrs. Tillery's pain.
- Immediately before the surgery, Dr. Richland learned that the Tillerys had not been told of the possible cancer. He informed Mr. Tillery of the chest condition.
- Mr. Tillery insisted the surgery proceed to address his wife's severe pain and asked that his wife not be informed about the cancer, stating she 'couldn't handle it.'
- Mrs. Tillery's condition later worsened, and a biopsy confirmed she had a highly virulent and inoperable lung cancer.
- Mrs. Tillery was eventually transferred to a convalescent hospital, where she died as a result of the carcinoma of the lung.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Tillery (plaintiff) sued Dr. Richland and Dr. Rothman (defendants) in a California trial court for intentional torts related to his wife's medical care.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Tillery against Dr. Rothman for $51,000 in compensatory damages.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Richland, finding him not liable.
- Mr. Tillery filed a motion for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct and concealed bias.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Mr. Tillery (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the California Court of Appeal, with Dr. Richland as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do juror affidavits describing comments made during deliberations about a party's character, financial status, or potential use of an award constitute admissible evidence of overt misconduct or concealed bias sufficient to impeach a verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Carstairs, J.
No. Juror affidavits describing comments made during deliberations about a party's character, financial status, or potential use of an award do not constitute admissible evidence sufficient to impeach a verdict. California Evidence Code § 1150 distinguishes between overt acts, which are objectively ascertainable and admissible to challenge a verdict, and the subjective reasoning processes of jurors, which are not. The statements alleged in the affidavits—regarding the plaintiff's financial status, his potential use of an award, and the defendant's good character—fall into the latter category of inadmissible evidence of jurors' mental processes. These comments, taken out of context, represent the 'give-and-take' of deliberations and are not proof of overt misconduct or that a juror intentionally concealed a disqualifying bias during voir dire. Allowing such 'transient comments' to overturn a verdict would chill the free exchange of ideas essential to jury deliberations and undermine the finality of verdicts.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the legal principle protecting the sanctity and finality of jury deliberations. It clarifies the high threshold for impeaching a verdict under California Evidence Code § 1150, narrowly defining admissible 'overt acts' while broadly protecting jurors' internal thought processes and discussions. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for a losing party to succeed on a motion for a new trial based on juror statements unless there is clear, objective evidence of external influence or provably concealed bias. This precedent solidifies the distinction between impermissible external influences and permissible, albeit sometimes harsh, internal deliberations.
