Andrews v. O'Hearn, 10837
Decision Date | 07 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 10837,10837 |
Citation | 387 N.W.2d 716 |
Parties | Mary ANDREWS and Mark Andrews, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. J.W. O'HEARN, M.D., S. Thompson, M.D., Fargo Clinic, St. Luke's Hospitals, Ryan B. Harrington, M.D., The Neurologic Associates, Dale R. Shook, M.D., Roger L. Gilbertson, M.D., Radiologists, Ltd., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, including each and every number between 1 and 50, inclusive, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
David M. Harney(argued), and Frederick C. Shaller, of Harney, Wolfe, Pagliuso, Shaller & Carr, Los Angeles, Cal., David M. Axelrad(argued), and Barry R. Levy, of Horvitz, Levy & Amerian, Encino, Cal., and Robert Vogel(argued), of Robert Vogel Law Office, P.C., Grand Forks, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John D. Kelly(argued), Jane C. Heinley, and Harlan G. Fuglesten, of Vogel, Brantner, Kelly, Knutson, Weir & Bye, Ltd., Fargo, for defendants and appelleesJ.W. O'Hearn, M.D., S. Thompson, M.D., and Fargo Clinic.
Jack G. Marcil(argued), and Paul F. Richard, of Serkland, Lundberg, Erickson, Marcil & McLean, Ltd., Fargo, for defendant and appellee St. Luke's Hospitals.
Patrick J. Maddock(argued), and Gerald J. Haga, of Degnan, McElroy, Lamb, Camrud, Maddock & Olson, Ltd., Grand Forks, for defendants and appelleesRyan B. Harrington, M.D., and The Neurologic Associates.
Gunder Gunhus (argued), and Kate MacEachern, of Gunhus, Grinnell, Klinger, Swenson & Guy, Moorhead, Minnesota, for defendants and appelleesDale R. Shook, M.D., Roger L. Gilbertson, M.D., and Radiologists, Ltd.
Mary and Mark Andrews(plaintiffs) appealed from the judgment of the district court of Cass County dismissing their complaint, the order denying their motion for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the order denying costs in their favor and granting taxation of costs against them.We affirm.
This suit involves various allegations of medical malpractice against Drs. O'Hearn, Thompson, Harrington, Shook, and Gilbertson, Fargo Clinic, St. Luke's Hospitals, The Neurologic Associates, and Radiologists, Ltd.(defendants).1Following a nine-week trial, the jury found O'Hearn, Harrington, and St. Luke's Hospitals negligent; the jury did not, however, find proximate cause between the acts of the negligent defendants and the injuries to the plaintiffs and therefore awarded no damages.On appeal, the plaintiffs raise as issues:
(1) that the trial court erroneously refused to consider juror affidavits that allegedly demonstrate the jury's use of an erroneous definition of proximate cause;
(2) that communications with the jury by the bailiff and judge without notice and outside the presence of counsel constituted prejudicial error;
(3) that the court's instruction on proximate cause was incorrect;
(4) that the court's instruction on presumption of truth was improper;
(5) that defense counsel committed misconduct during closing arguments;
(6) that the jury's finding of negligence against O'Hearn, Harrington, and St. Luke's Hospitals compels a finding of proximate cause and liability for damages;
(7) that the jury erred as a matter of law in absolving Fargo Clinic and The Neurologic Associates of negligence; and
(8) that the trial court erred by awarding costs and disbursements to defendants and denying costs to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the jurors disregarded the court's instruction on proximate cause and instead relied on their own improper definition of proximate cause.In support of this proposition, plaintiffs submitted six juror affidavits to the trial court.The trial court refused to consider the affidavits, holding that affidavits of jurors are not admissible to impeach the jury's verdict except to show juror misconduct based upon extraneous prejudicial information, outside influence, or a chance verdict.This is a correct statement of the long-standing rule in North Dakota.Rule 606(b), N.D.R.Ev.;Rule 59(b)(2), N.D.R.Civ.P.;Mauch v. Manufacturers Sales & Service, Inc., 345 N.W.2d 338(N.D.1984);James Turner & Sons v. Great Northern Railway Co., 67 N.D. 347, 272 N.W. 489(1937).Juror affidavits may not be used "for purposes of impeaching a verdict relative to the mental processes or reasoning of the jurors in arriving at a decision."Mauch, 345 N.W.2d at 343.An attempt to use juror affidavits to demonstrate how the jury arrived at its decision falls precisely within the confines of the rule prohibiting impeachment of the jury verdict.
Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that our rule should be abandoned because it prevents the correction of an injustice and denies the plaintiffs due process of law.2We have for many years extolled the importance of our public policy, which is codified in our rules, that prevents examination of the mental processes of jury deliberations.One of plaintiffs' counsel stated in oral argument that the future of the jury system in our State depends upon our determination of the appropriate response to alleged jury misconduct in its deliberations.We agree with counsel's statement, but reach a result contrary to his position.Were we to allow examination of the jury's internal deliberations, as is proposed here, the jury system would suffer an unprecedented blow to its function and effectiveness.As we stated in State v. Forrester, 14 N.D. 335, 338, 103 N.W. 625, 626(1905), consideration of juror affidavits to impeach a verdict would be a great detriment to the jury system:
[Emphasis added.]3
It is essential to our system of justice that the jury be unfettered in its discussions; the prospect of continued reexamination and subsequent justification of the jury verdict would create a substantial chilling effect upon the jurors and hinder free and open discussion.See, e.g., McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267-268, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300, 1302(1915).Post-verdict examination of the content, method, and manner of the jury's internal decision-making process would "place every verdict at the mercy of jurors and invite tampering and harassment."Notes of Advisory Committee on Rule 606(b), F.R.Evid., citingGrenz v. Werre, 129 N.W.2d 681(N.D.1964).As recently stated by the United States Supreme Court,
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, ----105 S.Ct. 471, 478, 83 L.Ed.2d 461, 470(1984).
This admonition as to the sanctity of the jury's thought processes and the need for finality applies with even more force to civil litigation, where liberty interests are not involved.4
Plaintiffs contend that a jury's agreement to disregard the instructions is an objectively verifiable act properly subject to judicial review.Plaintiffs' argument that group decisions constitute objectively verifiable evidence of overt acts that can be admitted as evidence is contrary to North Dakota law and drawn from a misapplication of one sentence taken out of the context of our decision in Kerzmann v. Rohweder, 321 N.W.2d 84(N.D.1982).In support of their view, the plaintiffs quoted only the italicized portion of the following quotation from Kerzmann:
Our reference to the similarity to the California rule, which is contained in a statute, does not mean that our rule is identical or is to be given similar interpretation.Indeed, the California statute is substantially different from our rule.Rule 606(b) of our Rules of Evidence5 provides that:
"a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Bulman v. Hulstrand Const. Co., Inc.
... ... Hanson v. Williams County, 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D.1986); Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986). Juxtaposed against this grant of an important substantive ... ...
-
Mills v. Reynolds
... ... North-Butte Mining Co., 55 Mont. 522, 179 P. 499 (1919); Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986); Malin v. La Moure Co., 27 N.D. 140, 145 N.W. 582 (1914); ... ...
-
Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assocs., Inc., 20130003.
... ... Tibert, 2009 ND 213, ¶ 16, 776 N.W.2d 549 (quoting Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716, 728 (N.D.1986)). “Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(a), ‘new trial’ is ... ...
-
Klutschkowski v. Peacehealth
... ... under which a remedy is legally cognizable and those under which it is not.); Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716, 723 (N.D.1986) ([o]ur research shows that [the open courts clause of ... ...