Opinion
Herbert M. Boyle and Kenuff D. Wolford, Herbert M. Boyle, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Yegge, Hall & Evans, Eugene O. Daniels, Don Thorpe, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
In this action each of the parties sought recovery for injuries and damages incurred in an automobile collision, which each alleged was caused by the negligence of the other. Trial was to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim and a verdict in favor of plaintiff on defendant's counterclaim. Judgments were entered dismissing each of the claims. Plaintiff alone appeals. We affirm.
Plaintiff asserts he was entitled to a new trial because the jury's verdict was based on matters outside the record. Plaintiff relies on the following facts. When the jury retired to the jury room to deliberate at the end of the trial no forms of verdict relative to defendant's counterclaim were given them. This oversight was not discovered until the jury returned its verdict in which the jury found 'the issues for the defendant.' In order to ascertain the jury's determination relative to the counterclaim a colloquy occurred between the court and the jury during which the foreman stated, 'Judge, this is the reason we decided on that verdict for the defendant, was that we could not find the plaintiff negligent nor could we find the defendant negligent on the countersuit.'
The foreman then asked to express some of the jury's thoughts which were to the effect that there were some facts relative to the accident which were not clear to them from the evidence, and that they did not have any information about a traffic citation, or insurance, or who paid the bills. The jury was advised that this information would have been improper. Thereafter a verdict form which found in favor of plaintiff on defendant's counterclaim was tendered to the jury. After being advised that by signing that verdict the result would be that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant would receive any money, the foreman signed the verdict with the consent of all the jurors.
The record discloses that the verdicts accurately reflect the conclusion of all of the jurors that neither party was to recover from the other. It has been held repeatedly that arguments, discussions, and reasons advanced by jurors, while considering their verdicts, may not be used to impeach a verdict returned by them. Lambrecht v. Archibald, 119 Colo. 356, 203 P.2d 897. See Noell v. Interstate Motor Lines, Inc., 166 Colo. 494, 444 P.2d 631; and Pletchas v. Von Poppenheim, 148 Colo. 127, 365 P.2d 261. The trial court properly refused to grant a new trial on the basis of the information disclosed by the jury foreman.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.