North Tex. Producers Ass'n v. Jenkins, 7004
Decision Date | 27 December 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 7004,7004 |
Citation | 342 S.W.2d 192 |
Parties | NORTH TEXAS PRODUCERS ASS'N, Appellant, v. Ray F. JENKINS, Jr., Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Underwood, Wilson, Sutton, Heare & Berry, Amarillo, for appellant.
Merchant, Fitzjarrald, Poole & Merchant, Amarillo, for appellee.
Ray F. Jenkins, Jr., hereafter referred to as appellee, brought suit against North Texas Producers Ass'n, hereafter referred to as appellant, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a collision involving appellant's truck and the Gore automobile in which appellee was riding. Trial to a jury resulted in a jury verdict, founded on which the court rendered judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant in the amount of $25,000. From this judgment, appellant perfected this appeal.
Appellant presents this appeal upon six points of error, but since we are of the opinion the case should be reversed because of the error of the jury in rendering a quotient verdict, we will only discuss that one assignment. The jury was having some trouble agreeing as to the amount of damages to assess. It was suggested that each one write down on a piece of paper the amount each one wanted to allow and to give the piece of paper to the foreman to add and to be divided by twelve. On a hearing on the motion for new trial, seven members of the jury were questioned.
The foreman of the jury was asked by appellee's attorney, 'When you got to the damage issue, tell me how you arrived at the damages?' His answer was, 'Well, everyone had a different idea and so we all put our amount, that we wanted to give, on slips of paper, and they all turned it in to me and I added it all up and divided by twelve.' Question: 'Then what happened?' Answer: 'It didn't come to quite twenty-five thousand dollars--it lacked, I don't remember the exact amount, but we made it twenty-five thousand dollars, and then we all agreed that would be it.' This is an admission that the jury arrived at the damages by adding the amount each handed to the foreman which he added and divided by twelve. The fact it did not come out an even number and the jury decided to make it $25,000 and agreed to that did not change the fact as to the method of arriving at the amount of damages. One of the jurors testified when the added amount was divided by twelve, it came out $25,000. Another juror testified as follows:
On direct examination one of the jurors testified as follows:
'Q. Again asking with respect to special issue No. 5, pertaining to damages, can you tell us what happened when you all reached that issue? A. Well, we discussed the damage and how much he should get, and someone said, 'well the insurance would pay it, any which way it went,'--that the insurance would probably pay it.
'Q. Was there any discussion with reference to attorney's fees? A. Yes, that the attorney would probably get about one-third or one-half of it.
'Q. Do you recall who said that? A. Well, Mr. Litchfield, I believe.
'Q. Was there any discussion in the presence and hearing of the jury with reference to doctor or hospital bills? A. Well, yes, we took into consideration the doctor bills and hospital bills on that.
'Q. Then how did the jury proceed to answer that issue, what then happened please? A. You mean to get the amount?
'Q. Yes, just what did they do? A. Well, we couldn't come to a conclusion on what amount to give to him, because everyone had a different opinion on what to give, and someone spoke up and said, 'let's write it down on a slip of paper and then give to the foreman to add up and divide by twelve,' and that we would come to an answer like that, and so we did.
Then on cross examination the same juror testified as follows:
'
' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Miles
...that result will be. This amounts to a verdict by chance rather than by thought and reflection. See North Texas Producers Ass'n v. Jenkins, 342 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1960); Crawford v. Consolidated Underwriters, 323 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1959); Kindy v. Willingham,......
-
Manshul Const. Corp. v. Dormitory Authority of State
...and must be set aside." Honigsberg v. NYC Transit Authority, 43 Misc.2d 1, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296 (N.Y.Cty., 1964), citing North Texas Producers Assn. v. Jenkins, 342 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Civ.App.). A quotient verdict may exist where jurors averaged their individual assessments and substituted the ave......
-
Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority
...involved. A 'quotient verdict' is nothing more than a verdict by chance, is illegal, and must be set aside. North Tex. Producers Ass'n v. Jenkins, Tex.Civ.App., 342 S.W.2d 192, 195. It is one resulting from agreement whereby each juror writes down amount of damages to which he thinks party ......
-
Klein v. Eichen
...verdicts are invalid, improper, illegal and must be set aside (Harvey v. Rickett, 15 Johns 87; see also North Tex Producers Assoc. v. Jenkins, Tex.Civ.App., 342 S.W.2d 192, 195; see also Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority, 43 Misc.2d 1, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296; see also Haarberg v. Schn......