01-0073 Grice Engineering, Inc. v. Szyjewski

Listen to this article

“First, the record shows that Grice Engineering acted promptly when it learned there might have been clerical error. It received an anonymous call on a Friday, six weeks after the verdict, and began contacting jurors the following week. Within two weeks, Grice Engineering had contacted and obtained sworn statements from eleven jurors….

“Second, Szyjewski does not raise any specific concerns related to the facts in this case. She simply argues that the ‘period of 7-8 weeks falls way behind any [reasonable] line.’ In effect, Szyjewski is arguing for a ‘bright line.’ That is, she contends that a line should be drawn at eight weeks, perhaps shorter, but at least at eight weeks. However, there is nothing inherently excessive about a seven- to eight-week time period.”

And, even though one of the 12 jurors said that while he was not sure about the $24,000 figure, he was sure that the answer to the verdict question had been unanimous and the other 11 jurors all testified that the proper figure was $24,000, we conclude that this is sufficiently trustworthy to support the trial court’s decision to correct the damages amount to reflect $24,000.

“We have considered all of the arguments presented and conclude that one of the arguments advanced by Grice Engineering at the post-trial hearing is the most persuasive. Grice Engineering argued that because this is a civil case requiring only five-sixths of the jurors to agree on a verdict, it needed to present supporting affidavits from just five-sixths of the jurors.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

CONCURRING OPINION: Roggensack, J. “The majority applies the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in this civil case as that quantum of proof required to correct a jury’s answer to a question on a special verdict….

I write separately to note that the parties have not suggested that a different standard applies in this civil context; therefore, we do not decide whether a lower burden of proof is sufficient. I observe that the supreme court has, in a civil context, applied the clear and convincing burden of proof to verdict impeachment based on alleged extraneous information.”

Dist IV, Rock County, Daley, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Daniel G. Jardine, Madison

For Respondent: Thomas J. Basting, Janesville; Margery M. Tibbetts, Janesville