Can a mere communication between a witness and a juror in a civil action be a ground for setting aside or granting a new trial?

It is generally held that a mere communication between a witness [1 Cal.App.3d 428] and a juror in a civil action is not a ground for setting aside the verdict or granting a new trial in the absence of a showing that the juror was influenced by such communication to the prejudice of one of the parties to the action. (See Annotation, supra, 52 A.L.R.2d 182, 185.) 'Where misconduct of a juror is urged, prejudice from that misconduct must be shown. (Citation.) The trial court passed upon the matter and by its denial of the motion for a new trial, determined that the alleged misconduct of the juror was not prejudicial. There is no showing of abuse of discretion. Under such circumstances, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal. (Citation.)' (People v. Thomas (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 832, 837, 239 P.2d 914, 918.)

Misconduct by Violation of Jurors' Duties