A review of reported Illinois decisions applying these principles to juror affidavits submitted to prove a quotient verdict demonstrates that juror affidavits submitted for this purpose should specifically attest to the advance agreement to employ the quotient process and to stop deliberations after the average is reached.
The affidavits were insufficient to show a quotient verdict because the jury did not stop with the average; the agreement to multiply by plaintiff's requested amount was reached through deliberation.
Meanwhile, in Dept of Transportation v Graham, (21) one affidavit attacking the verdict as a quotient verdict was submitted by defendant himself, who attested that he personally contacted several jurors, he asked the jurors how they reached the verdict, and the jurors told him they did so by averaging.
Both were insufficient to show a quotient verdict because neither one stated that the jury reached an advance agreement to be bound by the average.
Although acknowledging that the affidavits proved a quotient verdict, the appellate court found that the affidavits could not be considered because they impermissibly revealed the "motive, method or process by which the jury reached its verdict" by discussing the deliberations, The court held that juror affidavits ma> attack a quotient verdict only where "it can be shown that the decision to employ [the quotient method] was the result of extraneous influences." (24)
