沃斯勒诉理查兹制造有限公司VIP

沃斯勒诉理查兹制造有限公司（1983）143 Cal.App.3d 952 192 Cal.Rptr的。 219 219 Vossler v. Richards Manufacturing Co. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 952 , 192 Cal.Rptr.沃斯勒诉理查兹制造有限公司（1983）952 143 Cal.App.3d，192 Cal.Rptr。 219 219 Civ. 文明。 No. 6436.第6436号。 Court of Appeals of California, Fifth Appellate District.加州第五上诉区上诉法院。 June 15, 1983. 1983年6月15日 NELLIE VOSSLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant.俐俐沃斯勒，原告与答辩人，诉Richards制造公司，公司，被告，上诉人。 (Opinion by Andreen, J., with Zenovich, Acting PJ, and Hamlin, J., concurring.) （由代理PJ Zenovich，哈姆林，J.，J.，烈恩的意见同意。） COUNSEL法律顾问 Tuttle & Taylor, C. Stephen Howard, Jeffrey M. Hamerling and Alan D. Smith for Defendant and Appellant.杰弗里塔特尔泰勒，斯蒂芬霍华德Hamerling和Alan D.史密斯被告上诉人。 Richard R. Clifford and Arthur E. Schwimmer for Plaintiff and Respondent.理查德克利福德和亚瑟E.施维默原告与答辩人。 OPINION意见之 ANDREEN, J.烈恩，J. 1 Defendant Richards Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Richards) appeals from a judgment following jury trial in a products liability case. fn. 1被告理查兹制造公司，公司（理查兹）在产品责任案件的陪审团审判后的判决提出上诉。 FN 1 No attack is made on the sufficiency of evidence except as to the matter of punitive damages. 1没有攻击证据是否充分，除惩罚性赔偿的问题。 The judgment was for compensatory damages of $25,000 and punitive damages of $500,000.该判决为25,000美元和50万美元的惩罚性损害赔偿的补偿性赔偿金。 We affirm.我们确认。 Facts事实 We state the record in a light most favorable to the judgment.我们声明记录在光最有利的判决。 (Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) （尼尔诉农民文件。交易所（1978） 21 Cal.3d 910 , 922 148 Cal.Rptr. 21 Cal.3d 910，922 148 Cal.Rptr。 389, 582 P.2d 980.) 389，582 P.2d 980）。 In the period from 1970 through 1972, Dr. Leonard Marmor, an orthopedic surgeon working with the defendant corporation, developed a prosthetic device known as the Marmor Modular Knee, which permitted treatment of certain diseases of the knee by inserting specially crafted pieces of metal and plastic onto the surfaces of the bones that make up the knee joint.伦纳德马莫博士，整形外科医生与被告公司工作，从1970年至1972年期间，开发了一种称为的MARMOR模块化膝关节假肢设备，允许插入特制的金属片和治疗某些疾病的膝盖塑料的表面上，使膝关节的骨头。 The metal components of the modular knee were originally produced in three sizes-small, medium and large-and each size included three elements (a template, a trial and a final component), each perfectly matched within a size for implantation.金属部件的模块化膝盖原本生产三种尺寸 - 小型，中型和大型 - 每个大小包括三个元素（一个模板，审判和最后一个组件），每个内植入大小完全匹配。 When implanting a metal component, the surgeon used the template to mark and prepare the bone, the trial component to insure that preparation of the bone was accurate, and then cemented the final component permanently in place.当植入的金属成分，外科医生使用了模板标记，并准备骨，试验组件，以确保编制的骨准确，然后凝成的最后一个组件永久到位。 An important 143 Cal.App.3d 958 part of the surgical technique involved placing the final component so that it did not protrude forward of its proper location and impinge upon the kneecap when the knee was flexed.一个重要的143 Cal.App.3d 958参与配售的最后一个组成部分，所以它没有向前突出其适当的位置，并扑来时膝盖弯曲膝盖骨手术技术的一部分。 During 1973 defendant, through engineering error, began manufacturing final metal components of the medium category which were larger than originally designed and which therefore did not match the medium template and trial components.在1973年被告，通过工程的错误，开始制造最后的金属部件均大于原先的设计，因此并没有相匹配的介质的模板和审判组件类介质。 It was thus possible that a surgeon could prepare a bone for insertion of the medium metal component using properly sized medium template and trial components (which were reused from surgery to surgery) and then cement into place a too-large medium final component.因此，这是可能的，外科医生可以准备一块骨头插入介质中的金属部件，使用适当大小的介质模板和试验组件（手术），手术重用和水泥将过大的中最后一个组件。 Defendant had no procedure for insuring that the final components it produced were of the proper size, and so it manufactured and sold the larger-than-proper medium final components for some time without discovering the error.被告人有没有投保的最终组件的适当大小的程序，所以它制造和销售的较大较适当的介质最终组件了一段时间，没有发现错误。 In January of 1974, defendant discovered its error, but in order to prevent its competitors from gaining a larger share of the market for such devices, concealed it from the medical profession, from its own sales personnel and from Dr. Marmor.在1974年1月，被告发现其错误，但为了防止其竞争对手，获得市场较大份额的此类设备，隐瞒医学界，从自己的销售人员和博士MARMOR。 Defendant attempted to replace, on a pretext, all of the properly sized medium template and trial components with newly manufactured larger components, and later attempted to resell the originally designed medium components as a supposedly new small-medium size, all without informing anyone outside the defendant corporation of the reason for its actions.被告试图以取代一个借口，所有的正确尺寸的介质的的模板和审判组件与新制造更大的组件，后来又试图转售最初设计的培养基成分，作为一个所谓新的“中小型”大小，都没有通知任何人被告以外的公司，其行动的原因。 On October 15, 1974, a Marmor Modular Knee was implanted in the right knee of the then 67-year-old plaintiff. 1974年10月15日，一个马莫模块化的膝关节植入右膝当时67岁的原告。 One of the metal components used by the surgeon was a medium, and in the subsequent complications and treatment thereof it was revealed that the discrepancy between the older, smaller template and trial components and the larger final component had resulted in improper positioning of the final component, causing impingement on the plaintiffs kneecap which necessitated eventual removal of the kneecap, and other damages.外科医生所用的金属成分的介质，并在随后的并发症和治疗方法，它显露旧的，更小的模板和试验组件和较大的最后一个组成部分之间的差异导致的最终组件的定位不当造成冲击上需要最终消除膝盖骨，以及其他损害原告的膝盖。 On the issue of punitive damages, plaintiff proved that the components of the modular knee were actually manufactured by a subsidiary of the defendant and sold to defendant for approximately $23 per component, of which 10 percent reflected profit to the subsidiary.在这个问题上的惩罚性赔偿，原告证明组件的模块化膝盖一间附属公司，被告生产的“卖”给被告成分约为23，其中10的受访者反映利润的附属公司。 Defendant sold the modular knee components to the medical profession for prices ranging during the relevant period from $108 to $140 per component.被告销售价格介乎于有关期间由$ 108至$ 140每个组件模块化膝关节组件医学界。 From January 10, 1973, through April 2, 1973, 4,042 of the medium trial and final components were manufactured.从1973年1月10日至1973年4月2日，4042中试和最终元件的制造。 The modular knee components comprised about one-third of the output of the subsidiary that manufactured it.模块化膝关节组件包括附属公司制造的输出大约三分之一。 Defendants sales revenues were approximately $50 million in 1979, and the modular knee was one of 7,000 different products sold by defendant during the relevant period.被告的销售收入分别约为5000万美元，于1979年，模块化膝盖被告于有关期间出售7000不同的产品之一。 (Evidence regarding the number 143 Cal.App.3d 959 of modular knee instrument sets the template and trial components which were reused from surgery to surgery in use and the number of implant surgeries performed using medium components was also introduced.) （证据143 Cal.App.3d 959模块化膝关节仪表台的模板和审判被重用的组件，从手术到手术在使用及植入手术的数量进行培养基成分也被介绍。） Defendant sought to introduce testimony relating to the amount of royalties paid to Dr. Marmor in connection with the sales of the modular knee, and an objection on relevancy grounds was sustained.被告试图引入模块化膝盖销售博士MARMOR支付的特许权使用费的数额有关的证词，并持续关联理由反对。 During cross-examination of Dr. Marmor following his rebuttal testimony defense counsel sought to examine him concerning his alleged bias against the defendant, but the trial court would not permit such questions.盘问后马莫博士期间，他反驳证词的辩护律师试图探讨他有关他涉嫌对被告的偏见，但原审法院不会允许这样的问题。 During plaintiffs closing argument, defense counsel objected to the statement of plaintiffs counsel that defendant was . doing over fifty million dollars a year in sales ., on the grounds that it was unsupported by evidence, irrelevant and prejudicial.在原告的结案陈词，辩方律师反对的，被告是原告的律师声明“做销售超过5000万美元的年.”，理由是证据支持，无关紧要，损害。 The objection was overruled on all grounds.反对各种理由被否决。 In the course of deliberations, the jury requested by note an interpretation of certain instructions relating to punitive damages.在审议过程中，要求陪审团注意解释某些指令有关惩罚性赔偿。 The court answered the jurys question as follows: The Court: And what I want to tell you about this, is something thats rather simple, but I want you to listen to it carefully. And that is that there is no fixed relationship prescribed in the law between actual damages and punitive damages.法院陪审团的问题回答如下：“该法院：和什么我想告诉你这，是一些相当简单的，但我想你来听它仔细。而且那是，有没有在规定的固定关系法律之间的实际损害赔偿和惩罚性赔偿。 That is a matter thats left to your sound discretion, but you should consider it in light of the whole instruction given, 14.71, pages one, and two, including the last two lines of page 29 that you asked me about. “这是一个无论剩下的你的声音的自由裁量权，但你应该考虑在给整个指令，14.71，一，二页，包括第29页最后两行，你问我。 I can tell you nothing further. “我可以告诉你什么。” Evidentiary Rulings证据的裁决 Dr. Marmor testified at length in plaintiffs case-in-chief.马莫博士作证时长在原告的情况下，总编辑。 Direct and cross-examination during plaintiffs case established that Dr. Marmor had demanded that Richards notify doctors about the change in the configuration of the medium component and indemnify him against any loss due to any malpractice action brought against him due to the mismatch, and that there was serious disagreement between Marmor and Richards as to what should be done to remedy the situation.直接和盘问马莫博士曾要求理查兹通知医生配置的培养基成分的变化，并赔偿他反对任何任何违规行为对他提起诉讼，由于错配而造成的损失，并建立在原告的案件马莫和理查兹之间出现了严重的分歧，应该做些什么来补救的情况。 In addition, there was testimony about litigation brought by Dr. Marmor against Richards because of the manufacturing error, and by way of attempted impeachment of Marmor, Richards read portions of the transcript of that litigation.此外，还有关于诉讼所带来的博士MARMOR对理查兹因为制造错误的证词，和理查兹的方式企图弹劾MARMOR的，阅读部分誊本，诉讼。 It was further shown that Dr. Marmor and plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Williams, were colleagues and had socialized, and that when Dr. Williams experienced problems in surgery with plaintiffs knee,he called Dr. Marmor.进一步表明马莫博士和原告的治疗医生，威廉姆斯博士，被同事和社会，威廉姆斯博士时遇到问题，与原告的膝盖手术，他叫马莫博士。 The same day that Dr. Williams phoned, Dr. Marmor 143 Cal.App.3d 960 and his attorney traveled from Los Angeles to Tulare to meet with Dr. Williams in order to gather evidence for Marmors case against Richards.同一天，威廉姆斯博士打电话，马莫博士143 Cal.App.3d 960和他的律师专程从洛杉矶到图莱里，以满足威廉姆斯博士为了收集证据为MARMOR的情况下对理查兹。 It was established that Dr. Marmor had sought the testimony of other surgeons for use in his litigation against Richards.它的成立，博士MARMOR寻求其他医生的证词，他的诉讼理查兹使用。 The jury also learned that Dr. Marmor would not permit Richards salesmen to attend his seminars, and that he insisted that his name be removed from the product.陪审团还了解到，马莫博士将不允许理查兹推销员来参加他的研讨会，他坚持认为，他的名字被从产品中删除。 After the defense case, Dr. Marmor was recalled by plaintiff in rebuttal and examined concerning the nature of the fracture of plaintiffs femur following implantation of the modular knee, the size of the template and final components used in implantation, and the cause of certain damage to plaintiffs kneecap, all as revealed by previously introduced evidence.后防线的情况下，马莫博士在反驳原告召回一事接受讯问的性质原告的股骨骨折，植入模块化膝盖后，植入模板和最终使用的组件，以及造成一定损害的大小原告的膝盖，所有由先前推出的证据显示。 On cross-examination, after questioning relating to the rebuttal testimony, defense counsel proposed to question Dr. Marmor concerning his general bias against defendant.在质证，辩护律师质疑与反驳的证词后，马莫博士关于他的偏见被告提出质疑。 Following a nonreported conference at the bench, defense counsel announced the ruling of the court in a reported conference at the bench. fn.继一个在板凳的nonreported会议，辩护律师对法院的裁决宣布在报告发布会上板凳上新生力量。 2 2 2 It was well within the discretion of the trial court to preclude such cumulative and time-consuming duplication of inquiry. 2这是法庭审判的自由裁量权内排除这种累积和费时的重复查询。 (People v. La Macchia (1953) （人民诉LA马基亚（1953） 41 Cal.2d 738 , 743-744 264 P.2d 15; People ex rel. 41 Cal.2d 738，743-744 264 P.2d 15;人前rel。 Dept. Pub.部酒吧。 Wks.周。 v. Miller (1964)诉米勒（1964年） 231 Cal.App.2d 130 , 134 41 Cal.Rptr. 231 Cal.App.2d。130，134 41 Cal.Rptr。 645; People v. Flores (1977) 645的人民诉弗洛雷斯（1977） 71 Cal.App.3d 559 , 565-566 139 Cal.Rptr. 71 Cal.App.3d 559，565-566 139 Cal.Rptr。 546.) In a trial that had already consumed 13 court days and would last for another 5, no abuse of discretion appears from a limitation of cross-examination on a subject previously well covered by the defense. fn. 546）在试用了一下，已经消耗出庭日数13天，将持续为另外5，没有出现滥用自由裁量权从以前包括由国防主题盘问的限制。 FN。 3 3 3 The second evidentiary error claimed by defendant relates to the exclusion of testimony which would have shown the amount of royalties paid by defendant to Dr. Marmor. 3第二被告所声称的证据错误涉及到的证词排除会显示支付的特许权使用费的数额由被告人马莫博士。 After establishing that such royalties were paid, an objection to the question as to amount was sustained on the grounds that it was 143 Cal.App.3d 961 irrelevant.建立这种支付特许使用费后，反对的问题，金额，持续的理由，这是143 Cal.App.3d 961无关。 Defendants attempt to characterize this evidence as rehabilitative towards its expert, Dr. Bechtol, is disingenuous.被告试图去描述这方面的证据，向专家，博士Bechtol康复是虚伪的。 It had already been shown that both Drs.它已经被示出，这两个博士。 Marmor and Bechtol received royalty payments from defendant. MARMOR和Bechtol被告收取的特许权使用费。 The notion that the jury would (or should) have compared the amounts paid to each expert (by the same party) in weighing their credibility is more a product of defendants disappointment with the result of the trial than any reasoned analysis of its processes.陪审团将（或应该）的金额支付给每个专家（受同一方）在权衡他们的信誉比较的概念，更多的是被告的产品失望的结果比任何理性的分析其过程的审判。 4 The trial court has very broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence. 4原审法院承认或排除证据的自由裁量权具有十分广阔的。 (Continental Dairy Equip. Co. v. Lawrence (1971) （欧式乳品装备有限公司诉劳伦斯（1971年） 17 Cal.App.3d 378 , 384 94 Cal.Rptr. 17 Cal.App.3d 378，384 94 Cal.Rptr。 887.) Both case law and constitutional authority provide that prejudice is not presumed and must be affirmatively shown. 887）。这两种情况下，法律和宪法权威，偏见不是推定，必须肯定。 (Ibid) A judgment will not be reversed unless it can be said that a different result would have occurred had asserted error not been made. （同上）的判决不会逆转，除非它可以说是会发生断言错误并未作出了不同的结果。 (Ibid) It is a tribute to the skill and diligence of the trial court that so lengthy and complex a trial produced such improbable assertions of error. （同上）这是一个赞扬法庭审判，并勤勉尽职如此漫长而复杂的试验产生了这样不可能断言错误。 Necessity of Introducing Evidence of Defendants Wealth as Prerequisite for Punitive Damages被告人的财富作为惩罚性赔偿的前提条件提出证据的必要性 CitingNeal v. Farmers Ins.农民文件CitingNeal诉。 Exchange, supra,交易所前， 21 Cal.3d 910 , Richards contends that punitive damages may not be awarded unless a plaintiff introduces evidence of defendants wealth or profit from wrongdoing. 21 Cal.3d 910，理查兹争辩可能不能获得惩罚性赔偿，除非原告介绍被告的财富或利润的不法行为的证据。 However, Neal holds only that in determining whether a punitive damages award was excessive as a matter of law, the court should consider the wealth of the defendant.然而，尼尔只持有，在确定惩罚性赔偿是否是过度作为一个法律问题，法院应考虑被告的财富。 Neal did not hold that a punitive damages claim would fall if plaintiff did not introduce evidence of defendants wealth.尼尔并不认为惩罚性赔偿索赔须向如果原告没有提出证据证明被告的财富。 Defendant also relies on Alhino v. Starr (1980)被告还依赖于Alhino诉斯塔尔（1980） 112 Cal.App.3d 158 169 Cal.Rptr. 112 Cal.App.3d 158 169 Cal.Rptr。 136, which reversed a conditional order for new trial on the grounds of excessive damages. 136，扭转了新的试验条件为了过度损害赔偿的理由。 The reversal was mandated by the trial courts failure to provide the requisite written specification of reasons.逆转授权由原审法院未能提供所需的书面规范的原因。 (Code Civ. Proc., ? 657.) There was no evidence in the record of the net worth of the defendant. （代码文明过程，657。）没有证据证明被告人的身家纪录。 In order to assure that the punitive damages award was not excessive, the case was remanded for a redetermination of the appropriate amount.为了保证惩罚性赔偿裁决并不为过，案件被发回重审，为重新确定相应的金额。 The appellate panel stated at page 179:按第179页的上诉面板： However, the record here provides no evidence of the net worth of the . defendants. Further, the instant award has not been approved by the trial court though, by reason of its failure to make an adequate statement of reasons, the order granting a new trial cannot stand. “不过，这里记录的身家.被告没有提供证据，此外，即时奖励尚未由原审法院的批准，不过，因未能做出足够的理由陈述，顺序给予新的审判受不了. . The trial court may take additional evidence on the et worth of the . defendants, if necessary. 143 Cal.App.3d 962 “原审法院可能需要额外的证据，被告等价值，如果必要的。143 Cal.App.3d 962 . The judgment . against the . defendants is . remanded for a redetermination of the punitive damages in light of the net worth of the defendants. “.的判断.对.被告还押为重新确定的身家被告的惩罚性赔偿。” (Alhino v. Starr, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 179.) （Alhino诉斯塔尔，前112 Cal.App.3d第179页）。 The appellate panels disposition is opaque.上诉面板的处置是不透明的。 The judgment was reinstated, but the court took action . to assure that the punitive damage award is not excessive .复职的判决，但法院采取行动“，以确保惩罚性赔偿也不为过.” This language sounds as if the matter were remanded to the trial court for consideration of the new trial motion.这的语言听起来仿佛此事被发回重审，原审法院考虑的新的审判运动。 Such action would imply that the verdict would stand, even though there was no evidence of net worth, but that the trial court should consider net worth on a new trial motion.这种行动将意味着该裁决会受不了，即使有身家，但没有证据，原审法院应考虑身家上一个新的审判运动。 However, in the same paragraph the court stated: Accordingly, we remand for a redetermination of the appropriate amount of punitive damages in light of the principles stated above. The trial court may take additional evidence on the net worth of the . defendants, if necessary.然而，在同一段落中，法院指出：“因此，我们鉴于上述原则重新确定适当的惩罚性赔偿金额为发回重审，原审法院可能需要额外的身家.被告的证据，如果必要的。“ (Id, at p. 179.) This language suggests that the remand mandated a jury trial on the issue of punitive damages. （同上，第179页。）这种语言表明发回重审要求陪审团审判在这个问题上的惩罚性赔偿。 We admit to some puzzlement as to the true holding in Alhino.我们承认一些困惑，真正的控股Alhino。 Alhino was a decision of the First District, Division Two. Alhino是第一区，二科的决定。 Presiding Justice Taylor authored the opinion and it was concurred in by Justices Miller and Smith.主持正义泰勒创作的意见和赞同，法官米勒和史密斯。 Justice Taylor also wrote Nelson v. Gaunt (1981)泰勒法官也说尼尔森诉冈特（1981） 125 Cal.App.3d 623 178 Cal.Rptr. 125 Cal.App.3d 623 178 Cal.Rptr。 167, in which Justices Miller and Smith concurred. 167，其中法官米勒和史密斯同意。 It was a tort action for damages resulting from implantation of silicone in the breasts of plaintiff.这是导致植入硅胶乳房原告的损害赔偿的侵权诉讼。 Her special damages were $25,000.她的特殊的损害赔偿25,000元。 The verdict was for $450,000 in compensat