 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DUNN v. CHARLESTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.3/9/1992
ority opinion would give some credence to the fact that no objection to the inquiry was spelled out by counsel for the Defendants. The grounds for the objection were patent. The law forbids it.
In an effort to justify the inquiry, counsel for the Plaintiff argues many matters having no basis in the record. Quoted in counsel's brief are Newsweek magazine, Business Week magazine, and US News and World Report in which advertisements are alleged to have appeared deploring excessive verdicts.
I would hold that the inquiry itself gave jurors reason to believe that a verdict in this case would be paid by an insurance carrier, and this in spite of the fact that the judge told the jurors that he did not know whether insurance was or was not involved. If the basic principle of law to which I have referred is to be changed, the change should emanate from either the Legislature or the Supreme Court which initiated the rule and has consistently followed it.
If the voir dire inquiry is appropriate in this case, the same would be appropriate in a case wherein a Mom and Pop grocery store is being sued in a slip and fall case. The jury would get the impression that Mom and Pop had liability insurance even though they did not.
I would grant a new trial.
LITTLEJOHN, Acting Judge, dissenting:
|