Lankster

Lankster v. Alpha Beta Co.

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 4th 678·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 923·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 481·93 Daily Journal DAR 5642·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3295
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 1993No. B069020California1,807 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vogelmiriam, J.

Desiree Rae Lankster, a minor, sued Alpha Beta Company for damages for personal injuries. Alpha Beta won (by a vote of nine to three) and Desiree moved for a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct. Her motion was denied and she appealed, presenting us with a record sufficient to establish juror misconduct but insufficient to determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial. We hold that where, as here, an *681 error is presumptively prejudicial, the burden is on the respondent to ensure the record is sufficient to overcome the presumption. Since Alpha Beta did not meet its burden, we reverse.

Facts

Desiree was injured when her hand was caught in a turnstile at one of Alpha Beta’s markets. Although the record does not include a copy of the complaint, it appears she sued Alpha Beta on a negligence theory, contending the turnstile was improperly installed (with a clearance below the two-inch industry standard). A jury found Alpha Beta was not negligent.

Desiree moved for a new trial, offering the declarations of four jurors. According to Desiree’s uncontroverted evidence, Juror Consuelo Murray said, during deliberations, “I know you’re not supposed to look, but I…

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.