In a negligence action in a jurisdiction that had adopted comparative negligence, a jury rendered a verdict that the plaintiff suffered $90,000 in damages and was 10 percent at fault. the plaintiff’s attorney had presented evidence and argued in his closing argument that the plaintiff’s damages were $100,000. immediately after the verdict, the plaintiff, with permission from the court, discussed the case with all six of the jurors together before they left the courtroom. the plaintiff discovered that each of the jurors thought, contrary to the court’s instructions, that the damage amount was the amount that the plaintiff would receive, rather than the amount from which 10 percent would be deducted. the plaintiff seeks to offer testimony from each juror to that effect in order to increase the amount of the verdict to $100,000. is the testimony of the jurors admissible? a. yes, because a mistake was made by the jury in rendering its verdict. b. yes, because the jury misunderstanding was related to the applicable law, rather than the facts. c. no, because a juror cannot be questioned about a verdict in the presence of the other jurors. d. no, because a juror cannot testify as to any juror’s mental processes concerning a verdict.