Bauer v. Kummer
| Decision Date | 06 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 36521,36522,s. 36521 |
| Parties | Nick BAUER, Appellant, v. Gary KUMMER, a minor, by Arthur Kummer, his guardian ad litem, and Arthur Kummer, Respondents. Annie FOX, as trustee of the estate of Myron Fox, deceased, Appellant, v. Gary KUMMER, a minor, by Arthur Kummer, his guardian ad litem, and Arthur Kummer, defendants and third-party plaintiffs, Respondents, Nick BAUER, third-party defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is the general rule that, after a jury has been discharged, no affidavit of a juror--and no affidavit of any other person relating to what a juror has said--will be received to impeach the verdict where the facts sought to be shown inhere in the verdict itself, such as the attempt to show that the jurors misapprehended the evidence, or did not understand the charge of the court, or that they misconceived the legal consequences of their factual findings as to negligence and contributory negligence.
2. Affidavits of the jurors may, however, be received to show that, by a clerical error of the jury, the verdict returned in court was not the verdict unanimously agreed upon by them.
3. Great caution must be exercised in granting relief for clerical error lest it become a shield behind which to conceal an attack upon the verdict itself.
4. Whether a motion to change a verdict, or in the alternative to vacate it and grant a new trial, calls merely for relief from clerical error in reducing the verdict to writing, or constitutes an attempt to impeach the verdict itself, is primarily a question of fact.
5. The general rule that upon appeal the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the prevailing party also applies to evidence presented by affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to motions.
6. Where an issue arises as to whether the affidavit of a juror constitutes an attack upon the verdict itself or merely an attack upon the recordation of the verdict for clerical error, it is competent for the purpose of impeaching such juror to show by counteraffidavit that he has subsequently made statements which are inconsistent with the statements contained in his affidavit.
Carroll, Thorson & Anderson, Minneapolis, Sawyer & Lampe, Northfield, for appellants.
Holst, Erickson, Vogel & Richardson, Red Wing, for respondents.
In two personal injury actions arising out of the same automobile collision and consolidated for trial, plaintiffs and the third-party defendant appeal from the judgments entered.
On July 21, 1953, an automobile owned by defendant Arthur Kummer and driven by his minor son, defendant Gary Kummer, collided with an automobile owned and driven by plaintiff Nick Bauer. In addition to Bauer's action against both Kummers, we have another action by Annie Fox, as trustee, to recover damages for the death of Myron Fox who was killed while a passenger in the Bauer car. In the latter action Nick Bauer was joined as a third-party defendant. The two actions were consolidated for trial. Pursuant to specific interrogatories submitted to the jury in the form of a special verdict in each action, the jurors were asked if each driver had been negligent. The jurors answered 'yes' as to both drivers. The jurors likewise answered 'yes' to questions as to whether the negligence of each driver was a proximate cause of the accident. Upon additional interrogatories the jury further found that plaintiff Nick Bauer's damages were $6,168.35; that the damages of Arthur Kummer to his automobile as a counterclaiming defendant were $1,965 plus other damages of $96; and that those of the plaintiff Annie Fox were $844.55.
Pursuant to the jury's answers to these interrogatories, the court ordered judgment in the first action for defendant Arthur Kummer against plaintiff Nick Bauer for $1,965 and his costs and disbursements. In the second action judgment was ordered for plaintiff Annie Fox against defendants for her damages. Thereafter a motion was made in each case to vacate the verdict and to change the jury's answer to the question of whether Nick Bauer's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident from 'yes' to 'no' on the ground that the affirmative answers of the jury were due to mistake and inadvertence and did not express the jury's true intent. In the event the foregoing relief was denied, each motion demanded the alternative relief of a new trial. The motions were denied and judgments were entered. Nick Bauer as plaintiff appeals from the judgment in the first action and also as a third-party defendant from the judgment in the second action. Plaintiff Annie Fox also appeals.
1. We are here concerned with an attempted impeachment of the verdicts by affidavits of the jurors and by the affidavit of counsel. Counteraffidavits are also involved. It is the general rule that, after a jury has been discharged, no affidavit of a juror--and no affidavit of any other person relating to what a juror has said--will be received to impeach the verdict where the facts sought to be shown inhere in the verdict itself, such as the attempt to show that the jurors misapprehended the evidence, or did not understand the charge of the court, or that they misconceived the legal consequences of their factual findings as to negligence and contributory negligence. 1 Hence, no statements by the jurors, either unanimously or individually, can be resorted to for explaining or changing the meaning or legal effect of the verdict. 2
2. There is, however, a so-called exception to the above rule, which is an exception only in appearance since it involves only an impeachment of the paper recording of the verdict and not of the actual verdict to which the jurors had agreed in their deliberations. This exception permits the use of affidavits to show the true verdict for the limited purpose of proving that it was not correctly entered upon the written paper filed with the court. In other words, affidavits of the jurors may be received to show that, by a clerical error of the jury, the verdict returned in court was not the verdict unanimously agreed upon by them. 3
3--4. A sound public policy demands that a verdict be protected not only from clerical error in its recordation but also from attacks whereby it is sought to vacate, change, or explain the actual verdict on grounds which inhere in the jury room deliberations which led to its rendition. A distinct line must at all times be drawn between an impeachment of the Written record of the verdict and an attempted impeachment of the verdict itself. Untold mischief would result if the latter were ever permitted. 4 Great caution must therefore be exercised in granting relief for clerical error lest it become a shield behind which to conceal an attack upon the verdict itself. Whether a motion to change a verdict, or in the alternative to vacate it and grant a new trial, calls merely for relief from clerical error in reducing the verdict to writing, or constitutes an attempt to impeach the verdict itself is primarily a question of fact. We are here concerned with that factual issue. Appellants contend that the evidentiary content of the jurors' affidavits points only to a clerical error in the reporting of their verdict and that therefore the court erred in denying their motions. Respondents assert, however, that the evidence--including that contained in counteraffidavits--points not to a mere clerical error but to an actual impeachment of the verdict itself. We turn to the affidavits.
In identical affidavits the 12 jurors stated that through mistake and inadvertence the answer 'yes' was written as the answer to the interrogatory: 'Was the negligence of plaintiff Nick Bauer a proximate cause of said accident of July 21, 1953?' whereas it was their desire to answer 'no' to this interrogatory. Each juror was also of the opinion that all the jurors intended to answer 'no' to such interrogatory.
In an additional supporting affidavit plaintiffs' attorney stated that he had talked to one of the jurors by long-distance telephone and that such juror had informed him that she had voted for Nick Bauer to collect the damages which he had sustained and that she had not Intended to answer, or render any verdict, that the driving of Nick Bauer was in any way responsible for the collision. Affiant further stated that the other eleven jurors told him that they did not intend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoskins, 41663
...such as their mental processes in connection with it or any other matter resting alone in their minds or consciences. Bauer v. Kummer, 244 Minn. 488, 70 N.W.2d 273 (1955); Fortier v. Newman, 248 Minn. 69, 78 N.W.2d 382 (1956); State v. Robinson, 262 Minn. 79, 114 N.W.2d 737, certiorari deni......
-
Mauch v. Manufacturers Sales & Service, Inc.
...special-verdict questions. See Kerzmann v. Rohweder, supra; Gardner v. Germain, 264 Minn. 61, 117 N.W.2d 759 (1962); Bauer v. Kummer, 244 Minn. 488, 70 N.W.2d 273 (1955). In Grenz, supra, 129 N.W.2d at 692, we quoted, in relevant part, State v. Forrester, 14 N.D. 335, 338, 103 N.W. 625, 626......
-
Chalmers v. City of Chicago
...between impeachment of the verdict itself by explaining the basis upon which the verdict was reached. (But see Bauer v. Kummer (1955), 244 Minn. 488, 70 N.W.2d 273 (wherein the court recognized the distinction).) Unanimity is one factor that tends to influence the courts toward viewing the ......
-
Zimmerman v. Witte Transp. Co.
...Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 193 N.W.2d 802 (1972); Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 274 Minn. 482, 144 N.W.2d 540 (1966); Bauer v. Kummer, 244 Minn. 488, 70 N.W.2d 273 (1955). We thus hold that the trial court did not commit error in denying plaintiffs' motion for a Schwartz hearing. Further, w......