Opinion ID: 2040343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Appellant, Robert Lowe, brought a personal injury suit against appellee, Steele Construction Company. Trial began on July 11, 1983. During voir dire examination of the first jury panel, the following dialogue occurred between appellant's attorney and a prospective juror: Q. (By Mr. Stanton) I have somebody in here, I believe, I have forgotten the name, that is a claims representative or something or another. That's all it shows. Who's a claims representative, anyone here? A. (No response). Q. Also shown on here is somebody connected with an insurance company. A. (By Joann Swenson) Insurance agency. Q. You're an insurance agent? A. Yes. Q. The reason I would like to ask about that is because insurance companies are always the Defendants in these kinds of cases and there's a danger that the jury is going to be connected with an insurance company and is going to have either a bias or they're going to be afraid to rule for a Plaintiff because they have to do business with insurance companies all the time. Right now, I am going to ask you if this is going to be very difficult for you to take the position for the Plaintiff, who is working on a jobsite, injured by an unsafe condition on the jobsite, can you be absolutely impartial? A. I don't have any complaints against that. I work in personal insurance, with auto and homeowners' insurance. Q. Do you have anything to do with liability insurance? A. Yes, I do. I do professional and umbrella. Q. But not as far as business, nothing to do with construction sites or anything like that? A. No. Q. Do you really believe your connection with insurance companies iswhat should I say, so light that you can be impartial and fair? A. I feel I can be fair. Q. (By Mr. Nelson) May counsel approach the bench? A. (By the Court) Yes. Out of the presence of the jury, appellee's counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was granted and the entire panel was dismissed. Because another panel was available, the court directed the Clerk to call them for that afternoon. Before this panel arrived, appellee's counsel requested the court to admonish both counsel and their respective witnesses not to discuss the matter of insurance before the new jury. Counsel for appellant agreed with this request and assured the court that he had already done this and would again admonish his witnesses. The second jury was seated without incident. The first witness was appellant. He was present throughout the proceedings that morning. In response to a general question, appellant began talking about liability insurance in a narrative form. Appellee's counsel moved for another mistrial outside the jury's presence. In response to the court's inquiry, appellant's counsel stated that he did not talk to his client about the insurance matter because his client had been present throughout the morning and he thought it would just be futile. The motion for mistrial was again granted and the second jury panel was dismissed. Once again, the court directed the Clerk to call another panel of jurors. This third panel of potential jurors was successfully seated on July 12, 1983, and they returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on July 13, 1983. Reasoning that appellant and his attorney caused the mistrials, the court held counsel responsible for all the costs of the first jury panel and two-thirds of the cost of the second jury panel. Appellant was held personally liable for one-third of the cost of the second panel. The total cost of the first two jury panels was $851.35 and was to be paid to the Clerk of Courts of Pennington County. The trial court, thereafter, also jointly and severally assessed terms against appellant and his counsel for $582.88, the amount of attorney fees incurred by appellee in the first day's attempt to seat two jury panels and conduct the trial. ISSUES I. WERE THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR REGARDING HER RELATIONSHIP WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY PROPER? WE HOLD THAT THEY WERE NOT. II. DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ASSESS JURY COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES INCURRED IN A MISTRIAL AGAINST THE ATTORNEY OR PARTY CAUSING A MISTRIAL? UNDER OUR STATUTES, WE HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT.