## Facts

- Evelyne Elizabeth Resch sued Volkswagen of America, Inc. in a products-liability personal-injury action, alleging both design and manufacturing defects in a Volkswagen vehicle.
- The case was tried to a 12-person civil jury using special verdicts.
- The jury unanimously found no design defect.
- On manufacturing defect, nine of twelve jurors found a manufacturing defect.
- On causation, ten of twelve jurors found that any manufacturing defect was not a substantial factor in causing Resch’s injuries.
- Polling showed the ten jurors who found no substantial-factor causation were not the same group as the nine who found a manufacturing defect; three jurors who found no manufacturing defect nevertheless voted that “the defect” was not a substantial factor.
- Resch moved for a mistrial, arguing the verdicts were invalid because the same nine jurors did not concur on both manufacturing defect and lack of causation.
- The trial court denied the mistrial motion and entered judgment for Volkswagen; Resch appealed.

## Issues

1. In a civil trial using special verdicts, must the same nine jurors (three-fourths) concur in each logically related finding (e.g., defect and causation), or may different groups of nine concur on different special verdict findings?
2. Are special verdicts invalid when fewer than nine identical jurors agree both that a manufacturing defect existed and that the defect was not a substantial factor in causing injury?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Volkswagen.
- The court held that identical concurrence is not required across related special verdict findings.
- Jurors who dissented from a defect finding could still vote on the causation finding, and all jurors may participate in deliberations on each special verdict.
- Each special verdict was valid so long as it independently received the constitutionally required three-fourths concurrence.

## Legal Principles

- In California civil cases, a verdict may be rendered by three-fourths of the jury, as reflected in the state Constitution and Code of Civil Procedure section 618.
- When special verdicts are used, “any nine jurors” may agree on each separate special verdict; the membership of the three-fourths majority may change from issue to issue.
- A juror is not disqualified from deliberating and voting on later special verdict questions (such as causation) merely because the juror dissented on an earlier special verdict question (such as defect).
- Requiring identical juror concurrence across special verdict findings is inconsistent with the three-fourths verdict scheme and would increase mistrials without statutory or constitutional support.

## Conclusion

The court upheld defense judgment, ruling that special verdict findings in civil cases are valid if each finding separately receives three-fourths concurrence, even when different jurors comprise the majority on related questions such as defect and causation.


Resch v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 36 Cal. 3d 676 (Cal. 1984)