Maple

Maple v. Cincinnati, Inc.

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 3d 387·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1500·209 Cal. Rptr. 451
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 1985B003043California2,519 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

Defendant in a personal injury action appeals from an order granting plaintiff a new trial after a jury had returned a verdict in favor of defendant. We reverse.

Plaintiff George Maple suffered injuries while operating a press-brake machine during the course of his employment. The machine was manufactured by defendant Cincinnati, Inc. On May 16, 1983, after deliberating for two and one-half hours, the jury returned a nine-to-three verdict in favor of defendant. Judgment was immediately entered on the verdict.

Thereafter one of the jurors contacted plaintiff’s lawyer concerning the conduct of certain jurors which, in her opinion, did not comport with the trial judge’s instructions. On May 24, 1983, plaintiff filed a notice of motion for a new trial grounded on juror misconduct. On May 25th, plaintiff filed and served a notice of entry of judgment and declaration of mailing. On May 26th, plaintiff served and filed a second notice of intent to move for a new trial. A hearing on the motion was set for July 13, 1983.

Plaintiff, in addition to serving counsel for defendant, sent both of the notices of intent to move for a new trial to the law firm representing the worker’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.