McLain v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1987
• Citation: 586 A.2d 647
• Parties: Maria McLAIN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. . Submitted:
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 647

586 A.2d 647

Maria McLAIN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Superior Court of Delaware New Castle County.

Submitted: Nov. 5, 1987.

Decided: Aug. 1, 1988 ^*.

David H. Erisman of Cooch and Taylor, Wilmington, for the plaintiff.

Somers S. Price, Jr., and Laurie Selber Silverstein of Potter, Anderson and Corroon, Wilmington, for defendant General Motors Corp.

Stephen P. Casarino, and Sherry Ruggiero of Tybout, Redfearn, Casarino & Pell, Wilmington, for defendant Eva M. DaPollo.

Thomas J. Dellavecchio, c/o Eugene J. Maurer (former counsel), Wilmington, for defendant.

OPINION

GEBELEIN, Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for new trial and defendant General Motors Corporation's [G.M.] motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J.N.O.V.). For the reasons that follow, both motions are denied. ¹

Maria McLain, ["plaintiff"], filed a products liability action against the defendants, claiming that she suffered personal injuries allegedly caused by a defectively designed seat belt restraint in a car manufactured by G.M. Trial in the case commenced before a twelve-member special jury on October 5, 1987. Twenty-three days later, on October 28, this Court instructed the jury, and sent them to deliberate. Jury deliberations continued through the following day, and at approximately 3:15 p.m. on October 29, the Court was notified that the jurors had a question. Prior to bringing the jury back in, the Court informed counsel that the jury's written question stated, "The jury is hung on question number one 11 to 1. We need a little help." After a brief discussion, the Court informed counsel of its proposed response and indicated how it would proceed. The Court said:

Okay. We will bring them in. What I will tell them, that would involve me commenting on the evidence, which I'm not allowed to do, since they are the judges of the facts of the case. We will see if that brings any movement, and if they haven't reached a verdict by the end of the day, then we will bring them back tomorrow and probably give them an Allen charge tomorrow.

No objections were voiced to this suggestion by counsel for plaintiff or defendant.

The jury returned at 3:45 p.m. At that time, the Court informed them that their question was related to the facts, and not to the law, and that the Court could not help them with their deliberations. The jury then retired to deliberate further.

At 4:23 p.m., the jury returned with a verdict. The Court read the first special interrogatory question: "Do you find that General Motors Corporation was negligent by its failure to properly design and locate the seat belt retractor in the 1981 Firebird?" The forelady responded "No". The Court then asked the jury to harken to that verdict: "So say you all?" All jurors, including Juror # 3, responded affirmatively. The special verdict sheet, signed by all twelve jurors, was taken by the Court, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The jury was then dismissed.

On November 5, 1987, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial based upon post-verdict ex parte communications which occurred between a juror and the attorneys and a paralegal of plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiffs' motion states that following the verdict, Juror # 3 approached the paralegal working on this case for the plaintiff, and indicated that she (the juror) was sorry about the verdict. She also made other unidentified statements about "aspects of the verdict." The paralegal communicated Juror # 3's statements to counsel for the plaintiff. Juror # 3 also called counsel's office on the morning of October 30, 1987, and spoke with his partner about the jury deliberations. The partner filed an affidavit stating that he understood Juror # 3 to say that she would have held out for the plaintiff but for the harassing actions of the other jurors. That same day, counsel's partner relayed the fact of his conversation with Juror # 3 to counsel for the plaintiff.

On November 2, 1987, counsel discussed "the gist" of this October 30 conversation with Juror # 3. The following day, counsel contacted the Delaware Disciplinary Counsel to discuss the propriety of communicating directly with Juror # 3. The Disciplinary Counsel referred plaintiff's attorney to the Chairman of the Delaware State Bar Association's Ethics Committee. On November 3, 1987, the Chairman verbally advised the attorney that there was no rule prohibiting him from contacting Juror # 3, ² and the Chairman forwarded to plaintiff's attorney a draft opinion to that effect. ³

On November 4, 1987, plaintiff's counsel met with Juror # 3 to discuss the events which occurred on October 29 pertaining to the jury's deliberations. Juror # 3 subsequently executed an affidavit indicating that, on that date, she was the only hold-out in an otherwise unanimous jury favoring a verdict for the defendants. Juror # 3 stated that after the judge's response to their written question, and on their way back to the jury room, a member or members of the jury asked the bailiff if they could tell the Court that the "jury was hung", and request that they be permitted to go home. According to the affidavit, the bailiff responded "No. The Judge will send you home and bring you back tomorrow." At that point, several jurors allegedly became angry, and voiced their displeasure at having to return for another day of deliberation. Upon recommencing deliberations in the jury room, other members of the jury allegedly began to cast "angry and vicious remarks" at Juror # 3. The affidavit recited that she intended to remain a hold-out, understanding that a hung jury would necessitate a re-trial. However, as a result of the derogatory remarks of several other jurors, including one comment with religious overtones, Juror # 3 felt "harassed" and "embarassed". Juror # 3 claimed that as a result of "the pressure brought to bear upon her" by the other jurors, she became "unglued", relinquished her hold-out position, and cast her verdict in favor of the defendant. She concluded that had it not been for the bailiff's comment, and the ensuing verbal attack by the other jurors in the jury room, she would have remained a hold-out.

Plaintiff contends that the bailiff's statement and the purported intimidating actions of the other jurors constitute an extraneous influence improperly brought to bear upon Juror # 3. Plaintiff requests that a post-verdict evidentiary hearing be held in order to hear evidence, particularly the testimony of Juror # 3, pertaining to the allegedly extraneous matter received during jury deliberation.

As a general rule, a juror may not impeach his own verdict once the jury has been discharged. ⁴ Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 178, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 1089, 97 L.Ed. 1522 (1953); McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915); Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 384, 32 S.Ct. 793, 808, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912). The rationale underlying the prohibition against receipt of a juror's post-verdict testimony to impeach the verdict was aptly stated as early as 1912, when this Court said:

If this [impeachment of a verdict] were allowed, all a juror would have to do if he wanted to have a verdict set aside, would be to say to somebody else that it was found irregularly. It would put the verdict of a jury entirely in the hands of one juror.

Spahn v. People's Railway Company, Del.Super., 92 A. 727, 731 (1912) quoting State v. Harmon, 4 Pennewill 58 (1902). See also Polk's Lessee v. Minner, Del.Supr., 1 Del.Cas. 59, 60 (1795). This Court recognized that:

the danger of allowing one juror, or several jurors, to impeach their verdict ... would open the door to incalculable trouble, and seriously impair the value of jury trials.

Spahn, 92 A. at 731. ⁵

The Delaware Courts have steadfastly clung to the wisdom of the rule. In State v. Watson, Del.Super., 186 A.2d 543 (1961), aff'd, Watson v. State, Del.Supr., 184 A.2d 780 (1962), this Court, characterizing the prohibition against juror impeachment of verdicts as a "salutary rule of public policy ... whose purpose it is to protect the privacy of the jury room", explained that the rule's purpose

is to prevent over zealous litigants and a curious public from prying into deliberations which are intended to be, and should be, private, frank, and free discussions of the questions under consideration. Further, if after being discharged and mingling with the public, jurors are permitted to impeach verdicts which they have rendered, it would open the door for tampering with jurors and would place it in the power of a dissatisfied or corrupt juror to destroy a verdict to which he had deliberately given his assent under sanction of an oath. ⁶

186 A.2d at 544. See 89 C.J.S. Trial § 523 (1955 & Supp.1985).

Recognizing the "sound reasons for limiting after-the-fact inquiries into jury verdicts", the Delaware Supreme Court later observed that if no limits were placed on a juror's ability to impeach his verdict,

[j]urors would be harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts which might establish misconduct sufficient to set aside a verdict. If evidence thus secured could be thus used, the result would be to make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation; to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference.

Styler v. State, Del.Supr., 417 A.2d 948, 952 (1980) quoting McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915). ⁷ The Delaware Supreme Court recently summed up the policy considerations supporting the prohibition against juror impeachment of a verdict. In Sheeran v. State, Del.Supr., 526 A.2d 886 (1987), the Court articulated those reasons:

1) discouraging harassment of jurors by losing parties eager to have the verdict set aside; 2) encouraging free and open discussion among jurors; 3) reducing...