When a Lowball Car Crash Verdict Can Be Thrown Out in California

You go to trial after a crash and the jury returns a number that does not seem to match the evidence. Later you learn jurors talked about whether the other driver could afford to pay, or why you were not suing an insurance company. Is that the end of the road?

A published California appeals court decision filed in October 2026 shows that it does not have to be. In Martinez v. Contreras (case F090026), the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District affirmed a trial judge’s order granting a new trial after a $55,000 car crash verdict, because jurors discussed matters the law told them not to consider.

In plain terms: Juror misconduct means jurors did something during the case or in deliberations that the law or the judge’s instructions forbid, such as discussing insurance, a party’s wealth, or outside information. In California, a judge may set aside a verdict and order a new trial when misconduct of the jury materially affected a party’s substantial rights.

This page is general information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own record.

If you were hurt in a crash anywhere in California, Win Attorneys handles motor vehicle accidents, personal injury claims, UM and UIM claims, and wrongful death and catastrophic injury matters statewide. If you are still treating, keep up with your medical care.

Talk to us at (562) 296-5380 or reach out through our contact page for a free case review. Office: 17291 Irvine Blvd., Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780.

What Happened in Martinez v. Contreras

According to the opinion, the plaintiff, Martinez, and the defendant, Contreras, were involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 19, 2021. Martinez sued in Fresno County Superior Court in March 2022. The opinion notes Martinez’s statement, which Contreras did not dispute, that Contreras stipulated to negligence before trial and that the court granted a directed verdict on causation. The eight-day jury trial began on October 21, 2024.

On October 31, 2024, the jury awarded:

Past economic loss: $20,000
Future economic loss: $0
Past noneconomic loss: $20,000
Future noneconomic loss: $15,000

The total was $55,000, and judgment was entered for that amount on November 5, 2024.

Martinez then moved for a new trial on three grounds: misconduct of the jury, inadequate damages, and insufficiency of the evidence. She also asked, in the alternative, for additur, which is an order denying a new trial on the condition that the defendant agree to increase an inadequate award. On May 2, 2025, the trial court granted a new trial solely on the ground of jury misconduct and did not reach the other grounds. It did not grant additur.

The Court of Appeal filed its opinion on October 5, 2026, and certified it for publication on October 9, 2026. It affirmed the new trial order and awarded Martinez her costs on appeal.

What the Jurors Said Was Discussed

The misconduct claim rested on sworn declarations from two jurors. No opposing declarations were filed.

Juror No. 10 stated that during deliberations, some jurors openly discussed the defendant’s wealth and socioeconomic status, expressed sympathy for him, and voiced concern about how he would be able to afford a large judgment. He also stated that jurors discussed how injured service and military members lost limbs and would not receive much, if any, compensation. According to the declaration, these statements were “heavily discussed” when the jury reached a final amount in each damages category.

Juror No. 6 stated that jurors openly expressed concern about why Martinez was suing Contreras rather than an insurance company, and about how Contreras could afford a large judgment. He also described a discussion about whether the outcome would be different if the case were against a large corporation.

The trial judge found that these discussions violated three jury instructions: CACI No. 105 (insurance), CACI No. 117 (wealth or poverty of a party), and CACI No. 5000 (decide the case on the evidence and do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence the decision). The judge also found the misconduct was likely prejudicial.

What California Jurors May Not Consider

The instructions quoted in the opinion are direct:

Insurance. CACI No. 105 tells jurors they must not consider whether any party has insurance, that the presence or absence of insurance is totally irrelevant, and that the case must be decided only on the law and the evidence.
Wealth or poverty. CACI No. 117 tells jurors they may not consider the wealth or poverty of any party.
Sympathy and outside information. CACI No. 5000 tells jurors to decide the facts based on the evidence admitted at trial and not to let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence the decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed. It held that heavy discussion of the defendant’s wealth and ability to pay violated CACI No. 117, that discussion of whether insurance would or would not be available to satisfy a judgment violated CACI No. 105, that comparing the plaintiff’s injuries to what service members receive brought in matters outside the evidence in violation of CACI No. 5000, and that heavily discussed sympathy for the defendant also violated CACI No. 5000.

A related rule outside this opinion. California Evidence Code section 1155 separately provides that evidence that a person was insured against liability for a harm is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing. The Martinez court did not rely on section 1155. It relied on the jury instructions.

How a Judge Decides a Juror Misconduct Motion

The opinion describes a three-step process for a juror misconduct motion:

Admissibility. The judge first decides whether the juror declarations are admissible under Evidence Code section 1150.
Misconduct. If they are, the judge decides whether the facts establish misconduct.
Prejudice. If misconduct occurred, the judge decides whether it was prejudicial.

Evidence Code Section 1150: Statements Yes, Mental Processes No

Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a), allows evidence of statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, inside or outside the jury room, that are likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. It bars evidence of how those things affected a juror or of the mental processes by which the verdict was reached.

The opinion explains the line this way. Statements that were open to sight and hearing, and so could be corroborated, can be proved. A juror’s private reasoning cannot. But a statement made during deliberations is admissible when the very making of the statement is itself misconduct.

That distinction mattered. The court set aside several parts of the declarations:

Juror No. 6’s statement that he personally wondered why Martinez did not use her own insurance, because it described his own thoughts.
Juror No. 10’s statement that jurors expressed reluctance to give a large award, because it arguably reflected mental processes and reluctance alone is not misconduct.
The jurors’ conclusion that the result would be different against a corporation. The court said it did not believe misconduct can rest on jurors doing a “self-check” to make sure they are not influenced by improper considerations, and it did not consider that evidence.

What remained was enough. The court held that open, heavily discussed talk about the defendant’s wealth and ability to pay, insurance, injured service members, and sympathy for the defendant was admissible and established misconduct.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 657: Grounds and Reasons

Code of Civil Procedure section 657 lists the causes for which a verdict may be vacated and a new trial granted, including misconduct of the jury, excessive or inadequate damages, and insufficiency of the evidence. When a judge grants a new trial, the judge must specify the ground and the reasons for it. If the order does not contain the reasons, the judge must prepare, sign, and file them within 10 days, and may not direct a party’s attorney to prepare them.

The statute also sets a higher bar for some grounds. A new trial may not be granted for inadequate damages or insufficient evidence unless, after weighing the evidence, the judge is convinced from the entire record that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. In Martinez, the trial court granted the motion only for misconduct, so it did not reach that question.

Standard of Review: Why the Trial Judge’s Decision Stood

Relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007), the Court of Appeal explained that when a trial court provides a statement of reasons that complies with section 657, the appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, and the party challenging the order bears the burden of persuasion. If the reasons are missing or inadequate, review is independent and the burden shifts.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient. They identified the specific juror statements relied on and the specific instructions violated. Agreeing with one side’s arguments is not the same as letting that side’s lawyer draft the reasons.

On the declarations, the court found the hearsay, corroboration, and authentication objections were forfeited because they were not raised in the trial court. It added that nothing requires a judge to seek corroboration, and that when no counter-declarations are offered, the facts in the admissible portions are deemed established.

Prejudice and the Missing Transcript

Once juror misconduct is shown with admissible evidence, the opinion explains, it is presumed prejudicial, and the party opposing the new trial must rebut that presumption. The defendant chose to proceed without a reporter’s transcript of the eight-day trial, so the court could not review the entire record for harm. The court concluded he had not shown that no prejudice occurred and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

What This Means if Your Car Crash Verdict Seems Too Low

Martinez is a published opinion, so other California courts can rely on it. Some practical takeaways, offered as education only:

A low number alone is not misconduct. Jurors have wide latitude to weigh evidence. A new trial for inadequate damages has its own demanding standard under section 657.
What jurors openly said can matter. Open discussion of insurance, a party’s wealth or ability to pay, sympathy, or outside information may support a motion when it is proved by admissible statements rather than a juror’s private thoughts.
Deadlines are short. New trial motions follow strict statutory timelines. If something seems wrong after a verdict, talk with your trial lawyer right away.
The record matters. The appeal turned partly on objections not raised below and a record without a trial transcript.
A new trial is not a win. It means the case is tried again. The opinion does not say what a new jury will award.

Many crash claims never reach a jury. Our guide on what to do after a car accident in California covers the early steps.

Talk With Win Attorneys

Win Attorneys helps injured people across California from our Tustin office. If a crash changed your life and you have questions about your claim, a settlement offer, or a verdict, you do not have to sort it out alone. Our office is fluent in Spanish and Vietnamese; say so when you call.

Talk to us at (562) 296-5380, write through our contact page, or visit 17291 Irvine Blvd., Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780. The case review is free.

Juror Misconduct and New Trial FAQs

Can a judge throw out a low jury verdict in a California car accident case?

Yes, in some circumstances. Code of Civil Procedure section 657 allows a new trial for causes that include misconduct of the jury and inadequate damages. In Martinez v. Contreras, a judge ordered a new trial after a $55,000 verdict because jurors discussed insurance, the defendant’s ability to pay, sympathy, and outside matters, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Are jurors allowed to consider insurance in a California car crash trial?

No. The CACI No. 105 instruction quoted in the opinion tells jurors they must not consider whether any party has insurance and that it is totally irrelevant. Separately, Evidence Code section 1155 makes evidence of liability insurance inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.

Can jurors consider whether the other driver can afford to pay?

No. The CACI No. 117 instruction quoted in the opinion tells jurors they may not consider the wealth or poverty of any party. In Martinez, the court held that heavily discussing the defendant’s wealth and ability to pay while setting damages violated that instruction.

What is Evidence Code section 1150?

It is the California rule on what evidence can be used to challenge a verdict. It allows evidence of statements, conduct, conditions, or events likely to have influenced the verdict improperly, but bars evidence of a juror’s mental processes. A statement made in deliberations is admissible when making it was itself misconduct.

Does a new trial mean I will get more money?

Not necessarily. A new trial means the case is tried again before a new jury. The outcome depends on the evidence and the law at that trial. The Martinez opinion does not say what any new verdict will be.

How long do I have to ask for a new trial in California?

New trial motions follow short, strict statutory deadlines that run from events after the verdict. If you believe something went wrong in your trial, speak with your trial attorney immediately rather than waiting.

Is Martinez v. Contreras binding on other California courts?

The Fifth District certified the opinion for publication on October 9, 2026, which means it can be cited as precedent by California courts. How it applies in any other case depends on that case’s record.

Disclaimer

This page is general information for educational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case facts are taken from the published opinion in Martinez v. Contreras (Cal. Ct. App., Fifth Dist., No. F090026, filed October 5, 2026, certified for publication October 9, 2026). Outcomes depend on the facts and record of each matter. Seek medical care for injuries. Consult a licensed California attorney about your situation.