Contreras v. Goldrich

California Court of Appeal Nov 10, 1992 No. B060806Published

Before: Jackson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A special verdict finding that a defendant's conduct was not a legal cause of a plaintiff's injury is sufficient to support a judgment for the defendant, even if the jury failed to reach a verdict on the issue of negligence.

Issues

Whether a special verdict is fatally incomplete if the jury fails to answer the question regarding negligence but finds no proximate cause.
Whether a trial court may enter judgment for a defendant when the jury's special verdict findings are dispositive of nonliability.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“when the jury specially found that respondent’s alleged negligence was not a legal cause of appellant’s injury, nothing remained for the court but to draw the conclusion of law that respondent is not liable to appellant.”

“the jury’s special verdict finding the lack of proximate cause is dispositive of the defendant’s nonliability.”

Opinion

JACKSON, J.

In this action for medical malpractice, plaintiff and appellant Tony Contreras appeals following the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant and respondent James S. Goldrich, M.D., Inc., on a special jury verdict.

Appellant, a minor, alleged in his complaint by and through his mother and guardian ad litem, Kathlene Reyes, that as a proximate result of negligence by respondent Goldrich in providing prenatal care to appellant’s mother, appellant suffered injury by being born with permanent neurological damage and cerebral palsy.

The cause was submitted to a jury by special verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 624.) The special verdict form was based on BAJI No. 16.01 (1986 rev.). Questions Nos. 1 and 2 on the special verdict form were as follows:

“Question No. 1: Was defendant James Goldrich, M.D. negligent in the medical care and treatment rendered to Kathlene Reyes:

[1433]

Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Answer: _

If you answer Question No. 1 ‘no’, sign and return this verdict. If you answer Question No. 1 ‘yes’, then answer Question No. 2.

“Question No. 2: Was James Goldrich, M.D.’s negligence a legal cause in bringing about injury to Tony Contreras?

Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Answer:__”

The jury was unable to agree on a verdict as to question No. 1.

As to question No. 2, however, the necessary nine jurors agreed (Code Civ. Proc., § 618; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16;

Resch

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

(1984) 36 Cal.3d 676, 682 [205 Cal.Rptr. 827, 605 P.2d 1178]) that respondent’s negligence was

Contreras v. Goldrich

AI Brief

JACKSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief