Cook v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

California Supreme Court May 31, 1939 No. L. A. 17062Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's remarks to the jury were coercive and invaded the province of the jury, thereby depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial. The judgment was reversed because the judge improperly pressured the jury to reach a verdict and disregarded their request for clarification.

Issues

Whether the trial court's comments to the jury constituted coercive and prejudicial error.
Whether a litigant may challenge a jury instruction on appeal without having made a contemporaneous objection at trial.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to reread instructions requested by the jury.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statement of a trial judge to a disagreeing jury that they must arrive at a verdict, or language from which such peremptory order is logically inferred, is plain coercion and an invasion by the court of the province of the jury.”

“Tested by these rules the present instruction was plainly coercive.”

“Considering all of the circumstances shown, the trial judge’s peremptory instruction unquestionably prejudiced the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial and invaded the province of the jury.”

EDMONDS, J.

By this appeal the plaintiff challenges a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant and an order striking from the file affidavits presented by her in support of a motion for a new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries assertedly suffered as the result of the negligent

[593]

operation of a street car owned by the defendant. At the trial it was shown that the car on which she was riding had come to a stop at a street intersection, and that in trying to get off the car, the plaintiff fell to the street and was injured. The evidence upon the question whether the car had started forward before plaintiff had completed her descent from its rear platform was conflicting, but when it was submitted to a jury, a verdict in favor of the defendant was returned.

The chief ground upon which the plaintiff relies for a reversal of the judgment concerns the propriety of a special instruction given to the jury by the trial judge. After slightly less than two hours deliberation the jury returned to the court room and the following occurred:

“The Court: What is the trouble?

“The Foreman: We would like to have that part of your instructions read—

“The Court: There is only one instruction to be given you, and that is, now did this street car stop and start according to the plaintiff’s evidence, or did she fall off by slipping or some other thing? That is all you have got to figure out. You should not be over fifteen minutes at most.

“The Foreman: There seems to be a difference of opinion.

‘‘ The Court: That is all I am giving now. I will give you ten minutes more to fix it up, because I am not going to keep you here longer on a simple question like that. I don’t know what you would do with a complicated case if one as simple as this confuses you. You have got the evidence of people that said the car did not start. You have the evidence of the women or man who was on the street car, or the boy, who said it did start. It is up to you what followed. Tha.t is all there is to this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. It is as plain as the nose on your face. Go back and see what you can do.

Cook v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief