Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 36 In the cases cited by Simpson the offending juror had joined in rendering the verdict. Here the offending juror was not included among the 12 jurors who rendered the verdict after being instructed to begin deliberations anew. In the absence of any evidence that the offending juror's previous temporary participation in deliberations tainted the other jurors, this record wholly rebuts the presumption of prejudice on which Simpson relies. (See Glage v. Hawes Firearms Co. (1990) 226 Cal. App. 3d 314, 323, fn. 5, 276 Cal. Rptr. 430; [**79] People v. Dorsey (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 694, 704.) "The showing of misconduct is rebutted by an examination of the record which reveals no substantial likelihood that [Simpson] was given anything less than a full and fair consideration of [his] case by an impartial jury." ( Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 32 Cal. 3d 388, 417.) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR RUFO AND GOLDMAN Sharon Rufo and Fredric Goldman, the parents of Ronald, were awarded compensatory damages of $ 8.5 million on their action for wrongful death. [*614] The jury rendered this award under proper instructions that for wrongful death the heirs are entitled to reasonable compensation for the loss of love, PAGE 29 86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *614; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **79; 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***520; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759 companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, or moral support suffered as a result of the death, but not for their grief or sorrow or for the decedent's pain and suffering. (Code Civ. Proc., @ 377.61; Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 59, 67-78, 137 Cal. Rptr. 863, 562 P.2d 1022; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, @ 1424, p. 904; BAJI No. 14.50.) n13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n13 Under the trial court's instructions the jury awarded one sum in the aggregate for the present value of all losses suffered by both heirs. The amount was divided between Sharon Rufo and Fredric Goldman pursuant to their stipulation.
Page 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**80] Simpson contends the amount of $ 8.5 million is excessive, in other words that the evidence concerning the parents' loss is insufficient to justify the jury's verdict in such a large amount. He contends that Sharon Rufo's relationship with Ronald was not particularly close and affectionate, and even if Goldman's relationship with Ronald was close and affectionate, it does not justify an award of $ 8.5 million for the loss of comfort from an adult son who was living independently away from the parental home at the time of death. Simpson urged this point in a motion for new trial on the ground of excessive damages, [***521] which the trial court considered and denied. We have very narrow appellate review of the jury's determination of the amount of compensation for the parents' loss of comfort and society. First, the contention that the evidence does not support the verdict is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the appellate court must consider the whole record, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, presume every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence, and defer to the trier [**81] of fact's determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence. ( DiRosario v. Havens (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1224, 1240, 242 Cal. Rptr. 423; Fagerquist v. Western Sun Aviation, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 709, 727, 236 Cal. Rptr. 633.) Second, the appellate court ordinarily defers to the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial based on excessive damages, because of the trial judge's greater familiarity with the case. ( Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 43, 64, 118 Cal. Rptr. 184, 529 P.2d 608; Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1051, 1067, 232 Cal. Rptr. 528, 728 P.2d 1163.) The trial judge has greater discretion to reduce the damages on a motion for new trial than the appellate court has on appeal. If the trial judge denied the motion, concluding the award was not excessive, the appellate court gives
Page 1 and 2: Page 1 SHARON RUFO et al., Plaintif
Page 3 and 4: Page 3 Other physical evidence from
Page 5 and 6: Page 5 People v. McCray (1997) 58 C
Page 7 and 8: Page 7 Nancy Ney was a director of
Page 9 and 10: Page 9 Simpson contends "a period o
Page 11 and 12: Page 11 kill her, but also serves t
Page 13 and 14: Page 13 Cal. 3d 573, 584-587, 209 C
Page 15 and 16: Page 15 and to explain her conduct
Page 17 and 18: Page 17 weighing process, shows the
Page 19 and 20: Page 19 evidence about any score on
Page 21 and 22: Page 21 implanted in the minds of t
Page 23 and 24: Page 23 29B pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid.
Page 25 and 26: Page 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 27 and 28: Page 27 be bound by the manner in w
Page 29 and 30: Page 29 head. Simpson appears to re
Page 31 and 32: Page 31 by SID in the laboratory, b
Page 33 and 34: Page 33 opinion as to the validatio
Page 35: Page 35 But the presumption of prej
Page 39 and 40: Page 39 jury award, however, was in
Page 41 and 42: Page 41 Punitive damages are not aw
Page 43 and 44: Page 43 Freeman also reviewed the d
Page 45 and 46: Page 45 memorabilia shop in Manhatt
Page 47 and 48: Page 47 likeness in the future; Sim
Page 49 and 50: Page 49 italics added.) In Devlin v
Page 51 and 52: Page 51 limited economic damages re
Page 53 and 54: Page 53 PAGE 38 86 Cal. App. 4th 57
Page 55 and 56: Page 55 PAGE 39 86 Cal. App. 4th 57

Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?