In McDonald v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 256, a railroad brakeman employed by the defendant was severely injured when the truck on which he was working was hit by a line of railcars. (Id. at p. 260.) At trial, plaintiff asserted several theories of negligence, including one that defendant had provided an unsafe workplace by placing plaintiff on the tracks to guard a grade crossing, a condition that could have been obviated by maintaining crossing gates. (Ibid.) By a vote of nine to three, the jury found that defendant had not been negligent. (Id. at p. 261.) Plaintiff moved for a new trial. In support, he tendered a juror declaration stating that another juror, who had identified himself as a career transportation consultant, said during discussions of whether defendant should have installed crossing gates at the grade crossing that such gates were impractical and drew a diagram explaining why. The discussion of the gates lasted three to five minutes. (McDonald, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 262.) The trial court denied the new trial motion. (Id. at p. 263.) The Court of Appeal reversed. It explained that the juror's comments were "clearly misconduct" because they "derived from sources outside the evidence" and "rebutted a significant element of plaintiff's proof." (McDonald, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 264.) Further, the presumption of prejudice that arose upon a finding of prejudice was unrebutted. It explained: "We cannot agree with defendant's characterization of the episode as 'trivial.' Juror Silverman's exposition and demonstration may have been relatively brief, but they directly contradicted the trial evidence concerning a significant element of plaintiff's theory of unsafe workplace: the feasibility of crossing arms at the grade-crossing. The thrust of Silverman's illustrated remarks, as attested to by himself as well as other jurors, was that plaintiff's theory of how due care could have made his workplace safer was extrinsically unrealistic, impractical, and worthy of dismissal." (Id. at p. 266.) The court also rejected defendant's contention that it is unlikely that the juror's comments had any impact because the jurors had already tentatively aligned themselves nine to three in defendant's favor when the juror addressed them. It explained: "We cannot be so confident. In the first place, Brown's declaration was ambiguous as to the sequence and firmness of the jury's divisions in relation to when Silverman spoke. In any event, as described Silverman's remarks were strong and pertinent. They inherently carried a substantial probability of impact and influence." (McDonald, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 266.) Accordingly, "In light of the entire record, as well as the closeness of the verdict, we believe that there is a substantial likelihood that plaintiff was thereby harmed. The trial court should have granted plaintiff's motion for new trial." (Id. at p. 267.)