这篇我没有看任何法条纯凭联邦民诉的感觉写，所以会有错误，比如加州动议重审是3周不是28天，但我认为这篇500字的论文至少也可以有65分。
In California, a juror can be disqualified for cause if there is a reasonable likelihood that their judgment could be influenced by bias or a financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Juror #5 disclosed that she worked as a Motor engineer before retiring five years ago. While past employment could suggest potential bias (due to possible loyalty or insider knowledge), the substantial lapse of time since her departure may lessen concerns of bias.
Juror #5 also owns 50 shares of Motor stock, constituting 2% of her total financial assets. While owning stock in a party involved in a case can suggest a financial interest in the trial's outcome, the small shareholding (only 2% of her assets) means any financial impact from the litigation outcome might be insignificant.
Crucially, Juror #5 stated that she could be fair and impartial. Courts give weight to a juror's assertion of impartiality unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise. Considering all relevant factors, the court likely did not err in seating Juror #5.
A directed verdict is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact, meaning that even when evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion.
Here, the issue of whether the misuse was foreseeable is a factual question for the jury, based on the evidence presented. Moreover, even if Palma could convincingly argue that no reasonable jury could conclude the misuse was unforeseeable, she would still need to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find the product was not defective. To obtain a directed verdict, Palma must establish that a reasonable jury could only find that the seat was defectively designed and that any misuse was foreseeable. This sets a high bar.
Therefore, addressing only the foreseeability of misuse is insufficient for securing a directed verdict, particularly when the product's defectiveness remains disputed. The court appropriately denied the directed verdict motion, as both issues of defect and foreseeability were rightfully submitted to the jury.
A motion for a new trial must be filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. Here, Palma filed her motion within 28 days of the jury's verdict, suggesting timeliness.
Palma's motion is partly based on newly discovered evidence in the form of Motor's safety test reports, which indicate severe injuries were likely regardless of seat angle. For this to justify a new trial, Palma must demonstrate that the evidence was not discoverable through reasonable diligence during the original trial. In this case, if Motor intentionally hid these reports, Palma may argue that she could not have obtained them despite reasonable efforts, thus satisfying this requirement. Additionally, Palma needs to show that this evidence is crucial - had this evidence been available during the trial, the outcome would likely have been different. As the evidence appears to demonstrate that misuse was not the cause of the injuries, this evidence could have influenced the jury's decision, and thus was crucial.
Another basis for granting a new trial is evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party. Palma provides evidence that Motor intentionally concealed safety test reports, potentially constituting fraud or misconduct. If the court finds that Motor engaged in such behavior and that it impacted the outcome of the trial, this could warrant a new trial.
(500 words)