Court Opinion

ID: 9766275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:38:58.139133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.868033
License: Public Domain

(dissenting). I agree with the majority opinion except that portion dealing with the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel to the jury. In my opinion, counsel’s argument was so grossly improper that the judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered.
The import and impact of the objectionable portion of the argument can best be understood by reading it in its entirety.1
Although the court did, as the majority opinion states, because of the defendant’s objection, instruct the jury that they should have no prejudice against a defendant corporation and that it is not the law that “corporations are big and wealthy and, therefore, it [sic] ought to be made to pay,” the court made no comment whatsoever about counsel’s highly prejudicial and improper solicitations to the jury to “strike a blow for consumers protection and for all of us that work for a living” and not to *565let “Owens-Illinois, with all their plants and their multi-worldwide operations get bigger.” The court’s only response to the defendant’s protest against that inflammatory and “highly improper argument” was “I’m going to permit Mr. Blawie to go forward.” The court should have admonished counsel and then and there instructed the jury to disregard the improper argument—as did the court in somewhat similar circumstances in Weller v. Fish Transport Co., 123 Conn. 49, 192 A. 317. See A-105 Rec. & Briefs 375.
As the majority opinion points out, the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts, holding only Owens-Illinois liable and exonerating the bottler and retailer defendants. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the improper argument of counsel directed against Owens-Illinois was harmless.
The case should be remanded for a new trial.

 During final argument by Attorney Blawie, the following transpired:
“Mr. Blawie: May it please the Court and ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I’m reminded of how when the consumers had cases against some of the automobile manufacturers, how they were met tooth and nail with any claim that there were any defects in the cars. You see, you don’t hear about bottles being recalled, because by their very nature, - you can’t recall a defective bottle. It either breaks and no one is hurt, or it explodes and no one is around. Once in awhile you get a poor guy like Joe Marko, he brings it home, it explodes, assuming that it exploded. You don’t read about it because you cannot then recall the entire lot number so and so, because you will be met with a vigorous and impassionate defense by the best experts money can buy, by the best talent they can hire, to come in here and tell you that. You know, these large corporations are in business for a profit and have a soul that’s incomprehensible. They don’t even admit it’s their bottle for a week, and now they come in and they want you to follow the law and do justice, and their idea of justice is to turn out Joe Marko. They wouldn’t let you even listen to my expert tell you. Or else they would have had my expert tell you about it otherwise. And they wouldn’t want *565you to know that. This man wouldn’t. Owens-IUinois kept out his testimony. Owens-Illinois kept out his report—•
Mr. Bai: I’m going to object, if the Court please. And if the Court ruled it out, that’s not arguable.
The Court: The jury will be instructed.
Mr. Bai: Thank you.
Mr. Blawie: They’re the ones that want to confuse. They’re the ones that want to keep the consumer limited so they could make higher profit and use less glass in their bottles. Isn’t that what this ease turned out to be? Are you going to let them go and get away with it? You going to strike a blow for consumers’ protection and for all of us that work for a living, or are you going to let Owens-Illinois, with all their plants and their multi-worldwide operations get bigger?
Mr. Bai: I think that’s highly improper argument. I hesitate to interrupt, but I think I must.
Mr. Blawie: This is the second time you interrupted, for a man that is hesitant.
The Court: I’m going to permit Mr. Blawie to go forward.
Mr. Bai: I think that’s just inflaming passions.
Mr. Blawie: It hurts. It hurts when they hear it, but it’s the truth. They wouldn’t even admit it was their bottle. Bemember the proof I had to go through to prove it was their bottle.”