Title: COLBERT COUNTY-NORTHWEST ALA. v. Nix
Citation: 678 So. 2d 719
Docket Number: 1931322
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 1995

678 So. 2d 719 (1995)
The COLBERT COUNTY-NORTHWEST ALABAMA HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY, d/b/a Helen Keller Memorial Hospital, et al.
v.
Melvin Randall NIX and Stephanie Paulette Nix, as parents and next friends of Matthew Randall Nix, a minor.
1931322.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 27, 1995.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1996.
Braxton W. Ashe and Michelle A. Meurer of Ashe, Tanner, Moore &amp; Wright, P.C., Tuscumbia, and Oakley Melton, Jr. of Melton, Espy, Williams &amp; Hayes, P.C., Montgomery, for Colbert County-Northwest Alabama Healthcare Authority, d/b/a Helen Keller Memorial Hospital, and Phyllis Melton, R.N.
Ralph M. Young and Melissa A. Moreau, Florence, for Jeannie Williams and Judy Britton.
Curtis Simpson, Florence, for Dr. Joel Powell.
M. Clay Alspaugh of Hogan, Smith &amp; Alspaugh, Birmingham, S. Shay Samples and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell &amp; Newton, Birmingham, for Appellees.
COOK, Justice.
Melvin Randall Nix and Stephanie Paulette Nix sued Helen Keller Memorial Hospital ("Helen Keller Hospital"); Dr. Joel Powell; *720 Phyllis Melton, R.N.; Judy Britton, R.N.; Jeannie Williams, R.N.; Dr. Bill Vermillion; Dr. Wayne Melvin; Florence Clinic, Inc.; and Florence Emergency Physicians, P.C., alleging medical malpractice. The Nixes alleged medical malpractice regarding the birth of their son Matthew; their damages claims related to the alleged malpractice and to his later treatment for a seizure disorder that the Nixes contended was caused by that alleged malpractice. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. The Nixes moved for a new trial, alleging that they had been prejudiced by the failure of certain jurors to answer questions during voir dire examination. The trial court granted the Nixes a new trial against Dr. Powell, Helen Keller Hospital, Nurse Williams, Nurse Melton, and Nurse Britton, all of whom were involved in the alleged malpractice that occurred at Matthew Nix's birth, but denied the motion as to Dr. Vermillion, Dr. Melvin, Florence Emergency Physicians, P.C., and Florence Clinic, Inc. Dr. Powell, Helen Keller Hospital, Nurse Williams, Nurse Melton, and Nurse Britton appeal.[1]
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Nixes had been prejudiced by the failure of jurors Joan Curtis and Mary Smith to respond to certain questions during voir dire.
During voir dire examination of the prospective jurors, an attorney for the Nixes asked the following question:
Later in voir dire, the following questions were asked:
Juror Joan Curtis did not respond to either question. However, after trial, it was discovered that in 1993 her brother, John Wayne Thompson, had been represented by Steve Baccus, a member of the law firm that represented one of the defendants in this case. In the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial, Curtis stated that she speaks with her brother approximately every three months and that they regularly see each other during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. She testified that she had not known that he had been represented by Steven Baccus and that she had little knowledge about an accident that had led to Baccus's representation of Thompson. Curtis's pertinent testimony at the hearing on the Nixes' motion for new trial was as follows:
An attorney for the Nixes also asked the following question during voir dire:
Juror Mary Smith did not respond to this question. However, it was discovered after trial that Smith's sister, Barbara Johnson, had been employed by Helen Keller Hospital as an emergency medical technician on an ambulance team from May 1989 until December 1990, and that Johnson and her husband had since worked for a volunteer ambulance service. Smith testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial that, until after the trial, she had forgotten that Johnson had worked for Helen Keller Hospital. However, Smith admitted that while serving as a juror during the trial she had known that Johnson had worked for the county volunteer ambulance service. Smith's pertinent testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial was as follows:
Whether to grant or deny a motion for new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse a ruling in that regard unless it finds that the trial court's ruling constituted an abuse of that discretion. Without a showing of such an abuse, the trial court's ruling must be affirmed. Blackmon v. King Metals Co., 553 So. 2d 105 (Ala.1989); Menefee v. Veal, 484 So. 2d 437 (Ala.1986); Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock, 525 So. 2d 1366 (Ala. 1988).
In considering a motion for a new trial based on allegations of improper responses or a lack of responses by veniremembers during voir dire examination, the trial court must inquire as to whether the movant was probably prejudiced. If probable prejudice resulted from the veniremember's actions during voir dire, the motion for new trial must be granted. Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So. 2d 330 (1970). In Freeman, the Court noted some of the factors that may be considered pertinent to the trial court's determination of prejudice. Among those factors are "temporal remoteness of the matter inquired about, the ambiguity of the question propounded, the prospective juror's inadvertence or willfulness in falsifying or failing to answer, the failure of the juror to recollect, and the materiality of the matter inquired about." Freeman, 286 Ala. at 167, 238 So. 2d  at 335. The question of prejudice is a determination to be made within the trial court's discretion. Williston v. Ard, 611 So. 2d 274 (Ala.1992); Eaton v. Horton, 565 So. 2d 183 (Ala.1990).
The Freeman Court stated the following in regard to an appellate court's deference to the trial court's discretion in deciding whether to grant or to deny a motion for new trial based on alleged improper actions occurring during voir dire:
Freeman, 286 Ala. at 167, 238 So. 2d  at 335.
In granting the motion for new trial the trial court stated:
We conclude from reviewing the record that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the new trial. The trial court was able to observe the mannerisms, inflections in voice, and other characteristics of the jurors whose answers were at issue in other words, things that could reflect upon the jurors' credibility but that are beyond this Court's inherently limited ability to review by appellate transcriptand it found that the Nixes were probably prejudiced by the failure of those jurors to properly respond to the voir dire questioning.
Neither question at issue in this case was ambiguous. Both involved matters of material importance to the Nixes' exercise of their right to use their peremptory challenges in selecting the jury. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, and its order granting a new trial is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).
The Court correctly applies the principle of law this Court set out specifically in Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So. 2d 330 (1970): that we will reverse the trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial predicated upon a juror's answers or failure to answer at voir dire examination only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. This Court has not been consistent, however, in applying that rule. See, Wallace v. Campbell, 475 So. 2d 521 (Ala.1985) (Torbert, C.J., dissenting, joined by Maddox, J.); Wood v. Woodham, 561 So. 2d 224 (Ala.1989) (Maddox, J., dissenting).
HOUSTON, Justice (concurring specially).
This is a close call. From reading the record, I find no affirmative testimony indicating probable prejudice as a result of the jurors' failure to respond to questions asked during voir dire examination. Certainly, I would have voted to affirm on this issue, if the trial court had denied the Nixes a new trial. I faced this same problem in Land &amp; Associates, Inc. v. Simmons, 562 So. 2d 140 (Ala.1989) (Houston, J., concurring specially), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 918, 111 S. Ct. 1305, 113 L. Ed. 2d 240 (1991). I concur specially, after studying the following cases to make certain that plaintiffs and defendants have a level playing field when it comes to the denial or grant of new trials based on nonresponsiveness of jurors during voir dire: Ex parte Burton, 651 So. 2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1973, 131 L. Ed. 2d 862 (1995); Continental Eagle Corp. v. Mokrzycki, 611 So. 2d 313 (Ala.1992); Williston v. Ard, 611 So. 2d 274 (Ala.1992); Carter v. Henderson, 598 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.1992); Land &amp; Associates v. Simmons, 562 So. 2d 140 (Ala.1989); Bradford v. McGee, 534 So. 2d 1076 (Ala.1988); Ensor v. Wilson, 519 So. 2d 1244 (Ala.1987); Gold Kist, Inc. v. Brown, *724 495 So. 2d 540 (Ala.1986); Wallace v. Campbell, 475 So. 2d 521 (Ala.1985); Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So. 2d 1348 (Ala.1982); Estes Health Care Centers, Inc. v. Bannerman, 411 So. 2d 109 (Ala.1982); Cavalier Ins. Corp. v. Faulk, 368 So. 2d 6 (Ala. 1979); Martin v. Mansell, 357 So. 2d 964 (Ala.1978); Miller v. Samples, 291 Ala. 533, 283 So. 2d 424 (1973); Loch Ridge Construction Co. v. Barra, 291 Ala. 312, 280 So. 2d 745 (1973); and Hayes v. Boykin, 271 Ala. 588, 126 So. 2d 91 (1960).
[1]  We note that the Nixes did not appeal from that portion of the trial court's order denying their motion for new trial as to defendants Dr. Vermillion, Dr. Melvin, Florence Emergency Physicians, P.C., and Florence Clinic, Inc. Therefore, the propriety of the trial court's decision in that regard is not before this Court.