California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print


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



  • California Court of Appeal


  • 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.
Copied to clipboard