Opinion ID: 2581350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Jury's Visit to the Scene of the Accident

Text: [¶ 6] The applicable standard of review is this. The issue comes to this Court upon appeal of the district court's denial of a motion for new trial. Trial courts have broad discretion when ruling on a motion for new trial, and they will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. A party seeking reversal has a heavy burden; indeed, the party must show that a different result would have been obtained absent the abuse. Carlson v. Carlson, 888 P.2d 210, 215 (Wyo. 1995). [¶ 7] Garnick acknowledges that she requested the jury visit to the scene of the accident. If there were objections to the request, the School does not make reference to them. The good judgment of the trial court in granting the motion for a jury view is not called into question by the parties and, in that regard, we only suggest that a trial court may wish to make a clearer record as to the value of such a view than was done in this case. See 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial §§ 258-60 and 271(checklist for jury view) (1991). [5] Again, the record does not reflect these facts, but it appears to be accepted as true by both parties that the visit included the jury, the parties, counsel for both parties, the trial judge, and the court reporter. The record does not reflect that the jury or the bailiff(s) were instructed about any guidelines or limitations with respect to the accident scene visit. [6] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-206 (Lexis-Nexis 2001) provides this bit of guidance for a trial court: When the court considers it proper for the jurors to view the property which is the subject of litigation or the place in which any material fact occurred, it may order them to be conducted in a body under the charge of an officer to the place which shall be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose. While the jurors are absent no person other than the person so appointed shall speak to them on any subject connected with the trial. [¶ 8] This brief passage in the record sets the stage for the visit: THE COURT: ... And I want the record to reflect that we are going out to the school at this time. It's a quarter to 10:00. We will embark at about five minutes to 10:00. Counsel is permitted to go. Jessica is permitted to be there. Mrs. Weaver is permitted to be there as the representative of the School that's sitting at counsel table. But we, meaning the Jury, the Bailiff, Patricia and I are not going to wait around for you folks. If you are there, you can participate. But if you're not there, we're just going to go ahead and look at the gymnasium. [¶ 9] The transcript shows this with respect to the proceedings at the gymnasium: JUROR [E.]: Could we see the balance beam, where it was? THE COURT: Is there a person from the school here? They want to see the balance beam. Oh, there is Mrs. Weaver. Can you put the balance beam up? MR. COPENHAVER: Judge, its going to take some time. It's out in the sporting shed. She can show them where it was, but that's about it. THE COURT: Come show them where it was, Mrs. Weaver. (Mrs. Weaver indicated where the balance beam was placed.) MRS. WEAVER: you could craw[l] through the obstacle and the balance beam starts right about here and goes to about right about here. MR. MEYER: Where does it stop? MRS. WEAVER: Right back to here. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Colter, round them up. Let's go back. [¶ 10] The record contains a reporter's note that several inaudible comments were made by jurors to one another during the visit. We learn more about the visit, after the fact, when the trial court was compelled to deal with a predictable glitch that occurred during the accident scene visit: THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, I have to make a record of at least one thing out there at the gymnasium. Some of you produced a tape and measured the distance from the top rail of the mezzanine down to the mat. What was the distance that you measured? I wantit has to be part of the record. JUROR [O.]: The tape is twelve feet. THE COURT: How much was it? JUROR [O.]: The tape was twelve feet [7] . THE COURT: Twelve feet. JUROR [O.]: And it was just a little bit more. MR. MEYER: Was that from the top of the mat or from the floor? JUROR [O.]: No, from the floor. MR. MEYER: From the floor to the rail? THE COURT: Any other measurements that you took? JUROR [O.]: Nope. JUROR [E.]: That's not true. We kind of measured from the end of the beam to the tape. We didn't have a tape measure, but the tiles are a foot by a foot. THE COURT: So what wasso what was the distance? JUROR [E.]: Eight feet, from the tape next to the wall. MR. MEYER: Can I ask, your Honor, how they determined where thewhere the beam ended though? THE COURT: Mrs. Weaver showed us  showed the spot where the beam was placed and you Jurors, apparently, made a measurement from that point to the middle of the  the tape. Is that how it was Mrs. [E.]? JUROR [E.]: To the tape closest to the wall. MR. MEYER: Okay. Was there a measurement made to the first tape? JUROR [E.]: Well, we knew that it was three feet between the tape  MR. MEYER: Okay. JUROR [E.]: is what we surmised from that. MR. MEYER: Okay. THE COURT: Anything else that the jury did out there that needs to be made part of the record? Because, you see, what you're doing is evidence, folks. You are doing your own evidence gathering when you start measuring stuff. And I need to make sure that all the evidence is reflected in the record. That's why I have to talk to you about it. Yes, Mrs. [S.]? JUROR [S.]: I didn't measure anything, but I don't know if this matters. I did feel the thickness of the orange mat that was affixed to the bleachers. THE COURT: I think everyone did that. (Pause.) All right. Call your next witness, counsel, please. [¶ 11] Garnick contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial, which was filed after the relatively unfavorable verdict was received by the trial court. Garnick's counsel does not contend that any other remedial request was made at the time, for example, for a remedial instruction or for a mistrial. [8] Counsel for Garnick goes on to recite authority relating to unauthorized accident scene visits or unauthorized experiments by the jury. This, of course, was not an unauthorized [9] view, but Garnick does assert that the jury engaged in unauthorized conduct during an authorized visit. [10] As set out above, Garnick was aware of what occurred and did not seek either remedial instructions or to have a mistrial declared. As a general rule, that failure constitutes a bar to any subsequent assertion of the error. 75B Am.Jur.2d Trial § 1725 (1992); also see 75B Am.Jur.2d Trial §§ 1548-1555 (1992). In particular, we note the text of § 1554: Where it is disclosed prior to the verdict that jurors have engaged in an unauthorized view, a prompt objection is required or the losing party will be held to have speculated on a verdict in his favor and will be barred from complaining. The error arising from an unauthorized view by a juror of a scene pertinent to the trial of the cause in which the juror is sitting must be properly assigned, presented, and preserved for appeal. Also see, DeWitty v. Decker, 383 P.2d 734, 736 (Wyo.1963). Garnick refers to an affidavit from a juror to help advance a contention that the jury used the measurements taken by individual jurors at the view to devaluate the credibility of Garnick's case as well as her expert witnesses whose opinions relied on the distance from railing to floor being 13 feet. The district court did not consider the affidavit, and we approve of that decision. Garnick's brief does not contain cogent argument or pertinent authority that would convince us that the trial court abused its discretion in not giving weight to that affidavit. The affidavit is inconclusive as to the effect the measurement had on that individual juror's views and is speculation as to all other members of the jury. See 75B Am.Jur.2d Trial § 1555. [¶ 12] We conclude, given the totality of the circumstances of this case, and particularly in light of Garnick's failure to suggest or seek timely remedial measures, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.