Nodal v. Cal-West Rain, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 2019 No. B285482Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juror's injection of specialized, extra-judicial expertise regarding industry standards and liability into deliberations constituted misconduct that raised a presumption of prejudice, which the defendant failed to rebut. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, while affirming the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Issues

Whether a juror's introduction of specialized knowledge regarding industry standards and liability during deliberations constitutes prejudicial juror misconduct.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Such a juror may not vote or influence other jurors based upon asserted expertise on a matter not in evidence at trial. This is juror misconduct which raises a presumption of prejudice.”

“We conclude that the juror misconduct raised a presumption of prejudice, which was not rebutted by Cal West.”

“When the misconduct in question supports a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that at least one juror was impermissibly influenced to the [plaintiff’s] detriment, we are compelled to conclude that the integrity of the trial was undermined.”

Filed 7/17/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RUBEN NODAL, 2d Civil No. B285482 (Super. Ct. No. CV128215) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

CAL-WEST RAIN, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

A “rogue juror” is someone who, in a mischievous way, wanders apart from fellow jurors, does not follow the court’s instructions, and violates the juror’s oath. (See CACI No. 100.) This undermines the integrity of trial by an impartial jury. Such a juror may not vote or influence other jurors based upon asserted expertise on a matter not in evidence at trial. This is juror misconduct which raises a presumption of prejudice. Here, it was not rebutted and we reverse. This appeal follows a five-week trial in which appellant claimed that a steel nipple was improperly screwed into a plastic bushing on a vineyard irrigation system. The bushing failed, causing a 20-pound valve assembly to blow off a pump station pipe and strike appellant in the head. Appellant sued on a theory

of negligent design and construction. The jury returned a 9-3 special verdict that defendant Cal West Rain, Inc. (Cal West) was not negligent. Facts and Procedural History Appellant, a vineyard foreman for Kesselring Vineyard Consulting Services (KVCS), was injured when a valve assembly blew off a vineyard irrigation pipe and hit him. Lunacy Vineyard hired KVCS to plant and cultivate the vineyard, and Cal West designed and installed the irrigation system. The irrigation system pumped water from a reservoir to a pump station, and from the pump station to irrigation blocks that serviced the vineyard. Appellant claimed that the valve assembly blew off the pump station pipe because Cal West improperly joined a steel nipple with a threaded plastic bushing. The valve assembly had a steel nipple that threaded into a two-inch plastic bushing (PVC bushing), which was connected to the pump station pipe. Joe Garza, the Paso Robles branch manager of Cal West, oversaw the installation and trained appellant that the pump station had to be operated in automatic mode to maintain a water pressure of 100 pounds per square inch. Operation of the irrigation system in manual mode would produce water pressure exceeding the system design. In August of 2010, the pump station was not working. Appellant moved the power lever on the pump station from “off” to “on,” opened a gray box on the control panel, and pressed the green “manual” button and the blue “auto” button. After the pump station powered up, the valve assembly blew off the PVC bushing and hit appellant. Appellant’s expert, Ronald Bliesner, opined the valve assembly failed due to several factors, one of

Nodal v. Cal-West Rain, Inc.

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CAL-WEST RAIN, INC.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

YEGAN, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.

AI Brief