Case ID: ad_164/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Kolacki, as Administrator, etc., of Michael Kolacki, Deceased, Respondent, v. American Sugar Refining Company, Appellant.
    Second Department,
    November 20, 1914.
    Negligence—trial—improper conduct of counsel in asking jurors if they are interested in insurance company defending the case.
    Where plaintiff’s counsel in an action for negligence asks the jurors if they are interested in the Employers’ Liability Insurance Company which is “ defending this case,” the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed.
    
      Appeal by the defendant, American Sugar Refining Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 3d day of February, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of February, 1914, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      Bertrand L. Pettigrew, for the appellant.
    
      Vine H. Smith [Martin T. Manton with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

Without regard to the other points raised by appellant this judgment and order must be reversed because of the improper statement by plaintiff’s counsel in asking if the jurors were interested in the Employers’ Liability Insurance Company which is “ defending this case.” (Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. T. 479; Akin v. Lee, 206 id. 20; Bodzborski v. American Sugar Itefining Co., 210 id. 262.) The fact of a defense by the insurance company was thus pointedly injected into the trial at its threshold. It had even less excuse than the instances where the disclosure of such an interest by a casualty company came out in the course of the examination of a witness.

The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.

Jénks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs of the appeal to the appellant, and a new trial granted.