Court Opinion

ID: 9620675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:45:44.561749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:52.929444
License: Public Domain

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to the extent it holds that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding juror misconduct. Appellate courts must allow every reasonable inference that favors that trial court’s decision in granting the new trial. Lowdermilk v. Vescovo Bldg. & Realty Co., Inc., 91 S.W.3d 617, 625 (Mo.App.2002); Mason v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Mo.App.2002). Thus, the grant of a new trial will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Lowdermilk, 91 S.W.3d at 625. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration on the part of the court. Id. If reasonable people can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion. Id.
In this case, Garland’s counsel asked if any jurors or their family members had ever “been a plaintiff’ or “filed a lawsuit” in a personal injury case. After trial, Juror No. 3 stated that she did in fact fail to disclose that she was involved in a “slip and fall” accident in which she received a settlement. The majority concludes that the affidavit does not indicate that Juror No. 3 filed a lawsuit and strongly implies that her claims were settled without litigation. That is one way to assess the affidavit, however, there is also a strong implication that Juror No. 3 did file a lawsuit, as she retained an attorney prior to reaching a settlement. It is not unheard of for insurance companies to settle a lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties of further litigation. Moreover, Juror No. 3 states in her affidavit that she “failed to disclose” information. The circuit court could have reasonably concluded that, in view of the voir dire question, Juror No. 3 is stating that she failed to disclose information that was responsive to the question asked; i.e., she failed to disclose that she filed a lawsuit in a personal injury case.
The trial judge, who observed the proceedings and the parties throughout, concluded that there was juror non-disclosure. This Court should not find an abuse of discretion based upon this brief record detached from the context of the actual proceedings, particularly when that record reveals nothing but competing implications. I would find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial.