You were hurt in a car crash, your case went to trial, and the jury came back with a number that felt far too low. Later, you learn that some jurors spent their time worrying about whether the other driver could afford to pay. Is that allowed?
The short answer is no. California juries are told not to think about insurance, money, or sympathy when they decide damages. A new California ruling shows that when jurors break those rules in a car accident case, the judge can order a new trial.
The New Ruling: Martinez v. Contreras
The case is Martinez v. Contreras (case F090026), from the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The opinion was filed on October 5, 2026, and the court certified it for publication on October 9, 2026. Publication means other California courts can rely on it.
The case began with a motor vehicle accident in Fresno County on March 19, 2021. The driver who was sued agreed before trial that he was negligent, so the trial was about how much the injured driver should receive. After an eight-day trial, the jury awarded her $55,000 in total.
What the Jurors Talked About Behind Closed Doors
After the verdict, two jurors signed sworn statements about what was said during deliberations. According to those statements, jurors:
- Openly discussed the defendant’s wealth and whether he could afford a large judgment.
- Asked why the injured woman was suing the driver instead of an insurance company.
- Compared her injuries to those of military members who lose limbs and receive little or no compensation.
- Expressed sympathy for the driver who caused the crash.
One juror said these topics were “heavily discussed” while the jury was deciding the amount for each category of damages. The defense did not file any statements from other jurors disputing this account.
The Jury Instructions Those Talks Broke
Before deliberations, California judges read standard instructions to civil juries. The court pointed to three of them. One tells jurors they “must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance.” Another says jurors “may not consider the wealth or poverty of any party.” A third tells jurors to decide the facts “based on the evidence admitted in this trial” and not to let “bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion” influence the decision.
The trial judge found that the jury’s discussions violated all three instructions and granted a new trial on the ground of jury misconduct. The Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed that order.
Why Juror Statements Counted as Evidence
California has a rule, Evidence Code section 1150, that limits what can be used to attack a verdict. Courts cannot look into a juror’s private thinking or reasons for a vote. They can consider statements and conduct that other people could see or hear.
The driver argued that the juror statements only showed what jurors were thinking. The court disagreed. It explained that a statement can be used when the very act of saying it during deliberations is misconduct. Openly and repeatedly discussing a party’s wealth, insurance, and outside stories about soldiers was exactly that.
The court was careful about the limits, too. It did not rely on one juror’s statement about what he “personally wondered,” because that was private thought. It also said jurors who simply double check that they are not being swayed by improper ideas are not doing anything wrong.
Why the Driver Lost His Appeal
Once misconduct is proven, California law presumes it caused harm. The party who wants to keep the verdict must show that it did not. Here, the driver did not file the full trial transcript with the appeal, and he raised some of his objections for the first time on appeal. The court said those objections came too late and that he had not overcome the presumption of harm.
In plain words, both sides in a car accident case need to raise problems in the trial court, in writing and on time. Arguments that are not made there are often lost.
What This Means If Your Crash Case Goes to Trial
Most car accident claims settle without a trial. Many start as claims against the other driver’s insurer, which our guide to third-party injury claims in California explains. But when a case does reach a jury, this ruling is a reminder of a few points:
- A jury is not supposed to lower your award because the other driver seems likable or not wealthy.
- A jury is not supposed to guess about who has insurance, either way.
- If jurors break those rules, a new trial may be possible, but the facts must be proven with admissible evidence.
Good records still matter most. Start with the police report, using our guide on how to get your CHP or LAPD crash report in Los Angeles, and keep every medical bill and record. If the other driver was in a rental car, our post on who pays after a rental car crash covers a separate question about who can be held responsible.
Common Questions About Juries in Car Accident Cases
Will the jury be told the other driver has insurance?
Usually not. The standard instruction tells jurors that whether a party has insurance is not something they may consider. That rule applies to both sides.
Can a juror talk about what happened in deliberations after the trial?
In this case, two jurors signed sworn statements after the verdict, and the court used the parts that described what was openly said. Parts that only described a juror’s private thoughts were not used.
Does a new trial mean a bigger award?
No. A new trial means a new jury hears the case. No one can promise the result will be different or better.
Is this ruling final?
It is a published Court of Appeal decision. A party can ask the California Supreme Court to review a decision like this, so the law in this area could still change.
When to Call Mines Law Firm
We handle auto accident injury claims, and are accepting clients for those. If you are injured in an auto accident, that is when you should call us at 888-700-0093.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines (State Bar No. 331135), Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.