Court Opinion

ID: 9773510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:59.406408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.594049
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
There was- nothing vague about Mr. Hill’s statement, when he was arguing the damages issue to the jury, that he did not think Mr. Hurley cared how the jury answered that issue. A jury composed of intelligent men could only have understood, we believe, from that statement that Mr. Hurley was protected by liability insurance and so could not be personally affected however the personal damages issue was answered. To tell a jury of ordinary intelligence that the defendant in a damage suit did not care how thé damages issue is answered is, we believe, the legal equivalent of stating that such defendant is protected by insurance.
We adhere to our conclusion expressed in our- original opinion, that appellee’s tes*235timony disclosed that he knew he -was 'being questioned on the plea of privilege hearing about the written statement which he gave Mr. Garrison two days after the accident, and by failing to claim same was privileged lost any right to claim that it was privileged.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is refused.