Case Name: Hendrickson v. Quaker City Cab Co., Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1924-12-13
Citations: 84 Pa. Super. 218
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 105
Parties: Hendrickson v. Quaker City Cab Co., Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 218–220

Head Matter:
Hendrickson v. Quaker City Cab Co., Appellant.
Negligence — Trials—Improper remarles of witness — Motion to withdraw juror — Refusal.
In an action of trespass to recover damages for personal injuries, a verdict in favor of plaintiff will be affirmed, where it appeared that during the trial one of the witnesses, in no way related to appellee, testified that persons called on her who said they were from an insurance company representing the defendant. In such case, the court having directed the jury to disregard the suggested interest of the insurance company, and there being no reason to believe that the statement was prejudicial to the defendants, a motion to withdraw a juror was properly refused.
Argued October 17, 1924.
Appeal, No. 105, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1923, No. 9388, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of George H. C. Hendrickson, by his next friend and mother Minnie Hendrickson v. Quaker City Cab Company.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before McMichael, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $700 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence, the charge of the court and refusal of defendant’s motion to withdraw a juror.
Ward C. Henry, and with him Layton M. Schock, for appellant.
The court should have withdrawn a juror on account of the reference to an insurance carrier for the defendant company: Conover v. Bloom, 269 Pa. 548; Curran v. Lorch, 243 Pa. 247; Hollis v. U. S. Glass Co., 220 Pa. 49; Scranton Gas and Water Co. v. Weston, 63 Pa. Superior Ct. 570.
J. B. Colahan, 3d, for appellee, cited:
Holden v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 169 Pa. 1; Jones v. Binsheimer, 214 Pac. Rep. 375; Tuoliy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or. 527, 122 Pac. 36; Williamson v. Hardy, 190 Pac. Rep. 646.
December 13, 1924:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
This, with two other cases, was tried in the court bellow to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the same collision. Verdicts were rendered for the plaintiffs in each of three cases. A motion for a new trial was filed, which was granted in one case and denied in the others. This appeal is from the action of the court refusing to grant a new trial and entering judgment on the verdict.
During the progress of the trial one of the plaintiffs, in no wise related to the present appellee, while being examined as to her personal injuries, stated "my landlady came while I was still in bed and said there are two strangers downstairs who say that they are from an insurance company for the Quaker City Cab Company, shall I send them up ? I said no, send them to my lawyer, and they can make an appointment to come when my doctor is present. That is the word I sent, and they did not come any more." The defendant moved to withdraw a juror on the ground that this remark was improper as a reference to an insurance company being interested in the result of the accident. This the court declined to do, but indicated that he would entertain a motion to strike out the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay and inadmissible. Counsel for defendant declined to accept this suggestion and stated that he stood on his former motion to withdraw the juror. The court held the remark to have been inadvertently made, and not of sufficient importance to justify the withdrawal of the juror. The trial proceeded. No further reference was made to the possible interest of an insurance company, or the relation of the plaintiff in this case to it, but the court of its own motion directed the jury not to pay any attention to the suggested interest of a third party to the record. It is not even intimated that the remark was anticipated by counsel of plaintiff, and could not, under the circumstances of the case have any appreciable effect, Holden v. P. R. R. Co., 169 Pa. 1. Unless there is a reasonable belief that the unexpected statement would have a prejudicial effect on the defendant, it does not constitute a ground for the withdrawal of a juror: Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 221 Pa. 626. The verdict rendered could not in any reasonable way be attributed, to this trifling remark. The judgment is affirmed.