|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
misconduct. We do not agree.
Code of Civil Procedure section 128 provides in pertinent part: "(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: [ ] (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. [ ] (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it . . . . [ ] (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers [ ] . . . [ ] (5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of . . . all . . . persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding . . . ." This statute confers broad discretion on the trial court over the conduct of the litigation (Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 260, 264; Mowrer v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 223, 230), including the examination of witnesses (see Bolander v. Thompson (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 444, 449).
The trial judge unquestionably had the authority under this section to urge any witness, including a party, to keep his answers succinct and to the point, to avoid dragging out the proceedings and keep the trial moving along in an expeditious fashion. While we agree that the judge could have chosen a more appropriate method of conveying to Lindberg the importance of answering questions directly and succinctly, we do not believe he crossed the line into advocacy, nor do we deem his comments evidence of demonstrable bias against defendants.
In any event, we are not convinced that the remarks, none of which were heard by the jury, amounted to prejudicial error requiring reversal of the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 475; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1069.)
IX. Damages
Having rejected all of defendants' arguments going to defendants' liability, we turn to the issue of damages.
The jury returned a verdict awarding Lindberg $506,166 in economic damages and more than $2.7 million in non-economic damages. Defendants challenge both the economic and non-economic compensatory damages awards as speculative and excessive. We begin with a summary of the evidence of economic loss adduced at trial.
A. Economic Damages
It was undisputed that Lindberg's retirement from state employment at age 62 was precipitated by his second heart attack in four years. As noted, there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that defendants' tortious conduct was a substantial factor in contributing to his second heart attack and thus constituted a proximate cause of his premature retirement. Accordingly, we have rejected defendants' argument that the entire judgment must be overturned due to lack of causation.
The evidence as to economic damages consisted of (1) Lindberg's testimony that he "expected" to retire at age 72; and (2) the expert testimony of economist John Hancock that the present value of Lindberg's lost wages and benefits measured from his December 23, 2000 retirement unt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|