Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485·181 Cal. App. 4th 1108·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 136
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 2010B204184California7,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

—Richard Alonzo Bell suffered severe injuries when he lost control of his 1996 BMW Z3 roadster convertible while driving on a freeway transition road. He and his wife, Ema Baraka Wright-Bell (collectively Plaintiffs), sued Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and BMW of North America, LLC (collectively Defendants). After the jury returned a special verdict in favor of Defendants on negligence and products liability counts, the trial court granted Plaintiffs’ new trial motion but denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendants appeal the new trial order. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment and the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

We conclude that the trial court prejudicially erred by granting a new trial based on inadmissible statements in juror declarations, that the record does not justify a new trial on the grounds stated by the trial court, and that the new trial order cannot be affirmed on other grounds. We also conclude that Plaintiffs have shown no prejudicial error in the judgment. We therefore will reverse the order granting a new trial and affirm the judgment. We will dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal from the…

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.