Subscribe
   close

Affirming a lower court's denial of a motion for a new trial, a California appellate court held that a reference to a confidential mediation agreement during a trial over a products liability dispute did not provide sufficient grounds for granting a new trial, as it did not prejudice the losing party.

In Butler v. Ingersoll Rand, No. D049201, 2007 WL 4217157 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007), Butler worked as a heavy machine mechanic doing maintenance and repair work on an Ingersoll Rand DM-45 blasthole drill. While performing routine maintenance work, Butler lost his balance and fell to the ground suffering knee and neck injuries.

Butler sued Ingersoll Rand on various theories. During the trial, Butler referenced what allegedly transpired between the parties during mediation. The trial court awarded Butler $1,490,037 in damages. Ingersoll Rand appealed the judgment and order denying a new trial, arguing that the trial court should have granted a new trial based upon Butler's improper references during trial to a confidential mediation between the parties.

The Court held that Butler's reference to confidential mediation was unfortunate but did not warrant a new trial. Although California law provides a basis for awarding a new trial for "any reference to a mediation during a subsequent trial [as an] irregularity in the proceedings," a court may only grant a new trial "where that irregularity materially affects the substantial rights of a party."

Ingersoll Rand arguably waived its right to appeal issues relating to the statement by challenging its factual accuracy during the trial. Further, Ingersoll Rand did not suffer prejudice, as the trial was not before a jury and the judge immediately struck the improper portion of Butler's statement. Moreover, Ingersoll Rand had already made the court aware of facts concerning a settlement offer made during mediation. Finally, in denying Ingersoll Rand's new trial motion, the trial court noted that the unsuccessful mediation did not influence its determination that Ingersoll Rand defectively designed the DM-45 drill.

Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and legislation