 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elliott v. Home Depot10/14/2005
ANDREWS, P. J., PHIPPS and MIKELL, JJ.
Rachel and George Elliott sued Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. for negligence after Rachel Elliott was allegedly injured while shopping at a Home Depot store. The jury found in favor of Home Depot, and the Elliotts appeal. They contend that the trial court erred by improperly rehabilitating and failing to strike for cause seven jurors who had indicated that they would be prejudiced against Rachel Elliott because she had been diagnosed with degenerative disc disease before the Home Depot incident. Finding no error, we affirm.
During voir dire, plaintiffs' counsel asked the jury panel, "Are there any of you who have a prejudice that would prejudge Rachel Elliott if she has been diagnosed by any doctor with degenerative disk disease or degenerative disk condition prior to the Home Depot injury . . .?" Nine jurors raised their hands. Later, defense counsel asked the panel whether there was anyone who, for any reason, could not render a fair and impartial verdict. No hands were raised.
When the lawyers finished questioning the panel, the court asked plaintiffs' counsel, "Who are you challenging for cause?" Counsel replied, "The ones that responded that they would be prejudiced against Rachel Elliott because she had had degenerative disk disease." The court then called those nine jurors back and made the following statement:
. . . Ladies and gentlemen, we want to do some follow-up questioning with regard to your response to one or a couple of questions, those having to do with - I believe the way it was worded was prejudiced against Ms. Elliott because of degenerative disk disease or prior back injury.
. . . e also had a question that was asked by the Defendant, is there anyone who feels that they cannot render a fair and impartial verdict . . . . ome might think that answering one and not the other would be inconsistent. So, I want to do a little follow-up questioning with you.
First of all, with regard to prejudice against a party, I'm not sure how you may have taken this. So, I just want to ask, if it is shown that the Plaintiff had any kind of pre-existing injury or pre-existing degenerative disk disease, would that keep you from - that fact alone, regardless of any other evidence, would that keep you from rendering a fair and impartial verdict, because you don't know what the rest of the evidence is? I mean, would that overcome any other evidence that you might hear . . .?
Juror 6 raised his hand and explained, " t would be in the back of my mind through the whole thing, through the whole ordeal, I think." The court responded,
ou obviously haven't heard any evidence yet. And really the purpose of the voir dire is to find out where - you know, where you stand without having heard any evidence if there's something that's so strong that the evidence is not going to matter, that you are not going to be able to set that aside to render a verdict.
Juror 4 raised her hand and stated, "I think it would always be in the back of my mind as well." The court continued, "Remember, I'm not asking you if it's going to be on your mind. Will it keep you from being fair and impartial? I mean, I'm not quibbling words with you. I want to make sure that you understand the question." Juror 4 responded that knowing Rachel Elliott had a pre-existing injury would prevent her from being fair and impartial, and Juror 6 stated that he would expect the Elliotts to be "a little more aggressive" and show that Rachel Elliott had suffered "an additional injury to her existing injury."
The court responded,
I will charge you on the law about what the standard of rec
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|