West

West v. Reigal

Good Law
1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1842·208 Cal. App. 2d 638·25 Cal. Rptr. 288
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 1962Civ. 20002California1,930 words

Opinion

Opinion

Agee, J.

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered herein following a jury verdict for defendant. The sole question before us is whether the trial court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, based upon the alleged misconduct of the foreman of the jury in answering questions put to him upon his voir dire examination.

Plaintiff’s motion was supported by the affidavits of one of her attorneys, Mr. Clopton, and her father, Mr. West.

Mr. Clopton related that he approached the foreman, Mr. Stoneman, after the verdict had been rendered, and asked him for an explanation of the verdict and what was the deciding factor in his mind; that Mr. Stoneman replied: “ ‘The defendant wasn’t negligent, but if you want to know my true personal feelings on the matter I’ll tell you,’ that affiant requested a statement of such feelings and Stoneman replied: “ ‘I think you people are a bunch of ambulance chasers and attorneys such as you should be hung for even bringing cases such as this into Court. You waste the time of a bunch of people on the jury listening to these practiced witnesses in a performance you stage' that affiant then had his associate, Mr.…

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.