Robles v. Exxon Corp.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-2590,88-2590
• Parties: , 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 719 Joanne ROBLES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1201

862 F.2d 1201

12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1463, 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 719

Joanne ROBLES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-2590

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1989.

Michael D. Jones, Deborah L. Weimers, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Roland B. Darby, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, KING and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

This is a tale of two verdicts. The district court refused to enter judgment for the defendant, Exxon Corporation ("Exxon"), on the first verdict on the ground that juror testimony, received after the jury had rendered its verdict, indicated that the jury's answers to two special interrogatories were the result of the jury's failure to understand the court's instructions. Instead, the court ordered the jury to resume its deliberations. After the jury returned a second verdict, this time in favor of the plaintiff, Joanne Robles, the court entered judgment for her. Because we conclude that the district court erred by (1) refusing to enter judgment on the first verdict and (2) hearing the jurors' post-verdict testimony regarding their thought processes, we reverse and render.

I.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Robles sued Exxon for injuries suffered when she slipped and fell at one of Exxon's service stations. After both parties had presented their evidence, the district court, without objection from either party, instructed the jury on Robles' negligence claim. In accordance with Texas law, ¹ the district court twice specifically told the jury that if it found that Robles, on account of her own negligence, was more than 50% responsible for her injuries, she would be barred from recovering any damages from Exxon. ²

The district court then gave the jury six special interrogatories. The first four interrogatories asked whether (1) Exxon was negligent; (2) Exxon's negligence was a proximate cause of Robles's injuries; (3) Robles was negligent; and (4) Robles's negligence was a cause of her injuries. In Interrogatory No. 5, the jury was requested to write down the parties' relative percentages of fault, with Robles's percentage to be entered on line (a) and Exxon's on line (b). After reading Interrogatory No. 5 to the jury, the court specifically instructed the jury that

[i]f you answer 5(a) [regarding Robles' percentage of fault] in the percentage of 50 percent or less, answer special interrogatory number 6. Otherwise, do not answer special interrogatory number 6.

Finally, Interrogatory No. 6 asked the jury to determine the sum of money that would compensate Robles for her injuries. The special interrogatory form in hand, the jury retired to deliberate.

When the jury returned, the jury forewoman indicated that the jury had unanimously answered all of the questions which it cared to answer. Upon inquiry from the court, all of the jurors nodded their heads in agreement. The jury's answers to the special interrogatories indicated that it found that both Exxon and Robles were negligent, and that each party's negligence was a proximate cause of Robles's injuries. In response to Interrogatory No. 5, the jury found Robles 51% responsible for her injuries and Exxon only 49% responsible. In accordance with its instructions, the jury did not answer Interrogatory No. 6 regarding damages. Upon receiving this verdict, the court, before discharging the jury, observed that the jury's verdict meant that Robles would take nothing.

After discharging the jury, the judge retired with counsel to chambers. After a few moments, a marshal informed the judge that the jury forewoman thought that there was a "misunderstanding."

The court called the jurors back into the courtroom, and proceeded to elicit unsworn testimony from them regarding this "misunderstanding." The gist of their responses was that they understood the court's instructions to mean that if they found Robles more than 50% negligent, the judge, instead of the jury, would determine and award damages. According to one juror, the jury was unable to "come up with a reasonable amount to reward [Robles] with," although it "wanted to give her some money"; it understood, however, that "if we couldn't decide [on an award] and if [the answer to Interrogatory No. 5(a) ] were 51 percent or more, that you would decide from the bench whether she should be rewarded."

Although it noted that "[o]n the face of [the verdict] there is no conflict on the answers," the court decided that the jury had clearly misunderstood its instructions. Over the objection of Exxon's counsel, it instructed the jury to return and resume its deliberations the following morning. After such further deliberations, the jury found Robles to be 49% at fault and Exxon 51% at fault, and assessed damages in the amount of $85,450.00. The court accepted the verdict and entered judgment for Robles in the amount of $43,579.50 (51% of $85,450.00). Exxon appeals, arguing that the district court erred by denying its motion for judgment on the first verdict.

II.

Rule 58(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

upon a special verdict or a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories, the court shall promptly approve the form of the judgment, and the clerk shall thereupon enter it.

Although the court may resubmit special interrogatories to a jury prior to discharge if the jury's original answers to the interrogatories are irreconcilably inconsistent, ³ rule 58(2) and the seventh amendment command that judgment be entered on the verdict if the jury's answers are clear and consistent, subject, of course, to the usual motions under rules 50 and 59 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. See Nance, 817 F.2d at 1178; Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 915 (5th Cir.1973) ("The Seventh Amendment requires that if there is a view of the case which makes the jury's answers consistent, the court must adopt that view and enter judgment accordingly."); 6A J. Moore, J. Lucas, & G. Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice p 58.04 at 58-42 (2d ed. 1984) ("By returning a special verdict the jury has found the facts and it then becomes the duty of the court to apply the law to those facts and render judgment" (footnote omitted)).

As the district court itself correctly noted, there are simply no inconsistencies to be found in the jury's first set of answers to the special interrogatories. The jury found--by its own indication, unanimously--that both parties were negligent, that both parties' negligence was the proximate cause of Robles's injuries, and that Robles was 51% responsible and Exxon 49% responsible. As it was instructed, the jury did not answer the last interrogatory on damages, as it had already found Robles more than 50% at fault. From the face of the special verdict form, there is no indication that the jury did anything other than follow its instructions to the letter and answer the special interrogatories, which were put to it in a clear and consistent manner. Under rule 58, therefore, the district court should have entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of Exxon.

III.

The district court concluded, however, that resubmission of the interrogatories to the jury even after it was discharged was nonetheless proper because the post-verdict testimony from the jurors indicated that "[e]ach juror misunderstood the effect of his or her responses to Special Interrogatories 5 and 6." Although we acknowledge the district court's good intentions, we are compelled to disagree, because the method by which the court ascertained that the jury had misunderstood its instructions--receiving testimony from the jurors themselves after they had returned their verdict--is without question prohibited by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Rule 606(b) provides that

[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict ... a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict ... or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith.... ⁴

As the Advisory Committee's notes accompanying the rule indicate, the "central focus" of the federal decisions on which the rule is based has been to "insulat[e] ... the manner in which the jury reached the verdict, ... including arguments, statements, discussions, mental and emotional reactions, votes, and any other feature of the process." The Committee specifically mentioned with approval that courts have held jurors incompetent to testify as to whether they or other jurors misinterpreted their instructions. See id. (citing Farmers Co-op. Elevator Ass'n v. Strand, 382 F.2d 224, 230 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1014, 88 S.Ct. 589, 19 L.Ed.2d 659 (1967)).

Moreover, the legislative history of the rule unmistakably points to the conclusion that Congress made a conscious decision to disallow juror testimony as to the jurors' mental processes or fidelity to the court's instructions. See generally Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2748-50, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987). After the Supreme Court adopted the present version of rule 606(b) and transmitted it to Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, noting the restrictive scope of the proposed rule, rejected it in favor of a broader formulation that would have allowed juror testimony on "objective jury misconduct" occurring at any point during the trial or the jury's deliberations. See H.R.Rep. No. 93-650, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 9-10 (1973), reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 7051, 7083. The Senate Judiciary Committee did not disagree with the House Judiciary Committee's interpretation of the rule proposed by the Court, but it left no uncertainty as to...