California Court of Appeal

In suit against a vehicle manufacturer for product liability and negligence, a new trial for punitive damages based on juror misconduct was not warranted, where the deliberation process disabused jurors of any misconceptions; punitive damages were supported by substantial evidence of malice in design and production, and the amount awarded was not excessive.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/28/2002
• Published 06/28/2002

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Law Offices of Joseph W. Carcione, Jr., Joseph W. Carcione, Jr., Gerald K. Okimoto, Redwood City, Gary W. Dolinski, San Diego;  and Erwin Chemerinsky for Plaintiff and Appellant Juan Ramon Romo., Law Offices of Drivon & Tabak, Laurence E. Drivon;  and Erwin Chemerinsky for Plaintiffs and Appellants Maria Irene Romo and Evangelina Romo., Esner & Chang and Stuart B. Esner, Los Angeles, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Los Angeles, William E. Thomson, Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., and Miguel A. Estrada, Salinas, for Defendant and Appellant., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Donald M. Falk, Palo Alto, Evan M. Tager;  National Chamber Litigation Center and Robin S. Conrad for Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Horvitz & Levy, Ellis J. Horvitz, Mary-Christine Sungaila, and Curt Cutting, Encino, for The California Chamber of Commerce, The American Chemistry Council and Exxon Mobil Corporation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.