Court Opinion

ID: 9685162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:25:11.917798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.926171
License: Public Domain

DUNN, J.
I concur in the judgment, but disagree with the majority’s conclusion that, under the circumstances here presented, the jury’s verdict need not separately fix the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and the intervener.
While failure to require the jury to segregate its awards may be harmless error in some cases, as here, that practice should not be given the imprimatur of this court. The parties are entitled to a finding by the jury of the amount due the employer-insurer,1 if for no other reason than to insure the jury’s consideration of this item and to give added meaning to the additional award, if any there be, to the injured plaintiff. Labor Code, section 3856 does not dispense with the requirement of separate verdicts. That section merely directs the trial judge to fix priorities in the awards. (Cf.: Eldridge v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 365 [61 Cal.Rptr. 347].) I do not read Labor Code, section 3856 as adopting a procedure wherein separate verdicts are not required.
The possibilities of prejudice inherent in allowing a jury to return a single award may be illustrated by supposing an action wherein the *157employer-insurer paid benefits totaling $5,000. The amount of its damage would be fixed as a matter of law. Board of Administration v. Ames (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 215, 223-229 [29 Cal.Rptr. 917]. Having in mind the vagaries of human nature, it is neither beyond experience nor the realm of possibility to find a jury, for reasons extrinsic to the case, deciding to award the employer-insurer only $2,500 and give the plaintiff another $2,500 for his injuries. Faced with an award totalling $5,000 what would the trial court do? If it decided that the jury ignored the employer and intended the whole sum for the plaintiff, it would unjustly benefit the plaintiff; if it concluded that the employer-insurer got it all and the plaintiff none, similar injustice would occur. And if it granted both claimants a new trial, the defendant would suffer prejudice by the requirement that he again go to the expense of defending against both claimants rather than the one who actually was short-changed by the jury. In summary, the trial court could only speculate what the jury intended by its verdict. To avoid such a dilemma, the trial court must require separate verdicts.

“There can be little doubt but that, in a case'where an employer intervenes in the employee’s action for reimbursement of compensation payments paid to the employee, separate judgments may be rendered in favor of the employer and employee.” Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 254, 264 [255 F.2d 863],