Johnson v. Carbon

10 Citing cases

  1. Cutuk v. Bray

    NO. 68406-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2013)

    Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn.App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991).

  2. State v. Garza

    No. 70493-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2014)

    But it is not misconduct for jurors to use common sense or consider their own life experiences in reaching a verdict. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn.App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). In determining whether a juror's comments constitute extrinsic evidence rather than personal life experience, we consider whether the comments impart the kind of specialized knowledge that is provided by expert witnesses at trial.

  3. Anderson v. Pen-Lock Corp.

    148 Wn. App. 1047 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

    "The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence are matters which rest within the province of the jury." Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). CR 50(a)(1) provides in pertinent part,

  4. Powell v. United Parcel

    144 Wn. App. 1030 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)

    .Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991),review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1018 (1992). Whether a juror's statement is extrinsic evidence is a separate inquiry from whether it inheres in the verdict.

  5. Bramlett v. Heckard

    137 Wn. App. 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

    On the other hand, it is not misconduct for jurors to use common sense or consider their own life experiences in reaching a verdict. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). See, e.g., Breckenridge v. Valley Gen. Hosp., 150 Wn.2d 197, 204, 75 P.3d 944 (2003) (juror's statements regarding the manner in which an emergency room doctor would react to a particular situation, based on a juror's personal experiences visiting an emergency room, did not constitute misconduct).

  6. CHIAPPETTA v. BAHR

    111 Wn. App. 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Personal experience with injuries is within the realm of life experiences that a juror is expected to bring into deliberations. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). These experiences and their effect on the collective thought processes during jury deliberations inhere in the verdict and cannot be used to impeach the verdict.

  7. DeYoung v. Cenex Ltd.

    100 Wn. App. 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 55 times
    Ruling that prior grant of summary judgment to junior mortgagee in action on promissory note, which was not appealed by mortgagors, operated under doctrine of res judicata to bar relitigation of claim that defense of satisfaction barred suit on note

    The determination of juror misconduct is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.

  8. Allyn v. Boe

    87 Wn. App. 722 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 26 times
    Holding doctrine applied in trespass action where defendant first denied wrongdoing, "frustrat[ing]" plaintiff, and where investigation of expert was required to uncover the truth

    But the thought processes of jurors inhere in the verdict and cannot be used to impeach it. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991); Ayers v. Johnson Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wn.2d 747, 768, 818 P.2d 1337 (1991). Even a jury's failure to follow instructions or a misunderstanding of the instructions inheres in the verdict.

  9. Kiewit-Grice v. State

    77 Wn. App. 867 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 30 times
    In Kiewit-Grice the contractor sued the Department of Transportation, alleging the department breached the construction contract by providing defective concrete specifications for the project, forcing Kiewit-Grice to perform additional repair work at substantial expense.

    "The individual or collective thought processes leading to a verdict `inhere in the verdict'". Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991), review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1018 (1992). Where a juror's affidavit describes the considerations that led to the verdict, a court may not consider it. Coleman v. George, 62 Wn.2d 840, 842, 384 P.2d 871 (1963).

  10. Johnson v. Carbon

    62 Wn. App. 1024 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991)

    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 86-2-03806-4, Michael E. Donohue, J., entered January 5, 1990. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Shields, J., concurred in by Green, C.J., and Munson, J. Now partially published at 63 Wn. App. 294.