Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc

In Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, the plaintiff sued a golf cart manufacturer (CCI) and others after the brake released on a parked golf cart and the rolling golf cart caused him severe injury. In a special verdict, the jury found that there was a design defect in the golf cart which caused injury to the plaintiff, but then answered "no" to question seven--whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by a reasonably foreseeable use of the golf cart. (Id. at pp. 298-299.) Nonetheless, because the verdict form failed to direct the jury to stop answering questions in the event of a "no" answer to question seven, the jury continued to answer subsequent questions and apportioned 40 percent of the fault to CCI. (Id. at p. 299 & fn. 7.) After the verdict was read, the trial court explained the inconsistency to the jury: "'You will notice in question number seven your answer was no. That was reflected with 12 no votes. By answering no to question number seven, that eliminates liability for CCI. So when you get to question number 10 then, CCI should not be included in the breakdown of the percentages. So what I am going to ask you to do is reflect on seven and 10 and make any appropriate changes.'" (Id. at p. 299.) After deliberating for approximately 10 minutes, the jury changed its answer to question seven from "no" to "yes." (Id. at p. 300.) The appellate court affirmed the denial of CCI's motions for a new trial and to vacate the judgment. It concluded that the verdict was inconsistent and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to invoke section 619 to correct the verdict. (Mendoza, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 302-306.) Moreover, Mendoza found nothing prejudicial in the trial court's informing the jury of the legal effect of its inconsistent answers. (Id. at pp. 307-309.) Importantly, the Mendoza court emphasized the wide latitude accorded to trial courts in determining whether to apply section 619. (Mendoza, supra, at p. 302.) Moreover, Mendoza did not suggest that courts are required to employ only one type of procedure to correct a verdict; the focus of the decision involved the trial court's obligation to correct an inconsistent verdict. The court stated: "Where the discrepancy is identified before the jury is discharged, the court retains control of the jury and may, pursuant to section 619, use its power to correct the verdict before it becomes final. In fact, it is the court's duty in such a case to attempt to remedy the situation. " (Id. at p. 303.)