Day v. Panos

Plaintiff’s contention that the verdict was rendered by chance, in violation of Rule 59(a)(2), Utah R.Civ.P., is founded solely on the content of an affidavit signed *406by the jury foreman. The affidavit was prepared and presented by the plaintiff and is partially couched in the specific language of the rule in an apparent effort to show a violation thereof. Nevertheless, it fails to set forth what the rule actually proscribes, i.e., an “inducement” that results in an “assent” to a verdict by chance.

The foreman’s statement presumed to speak for seven other jurors, none of whom joined him by…