Court Opinion

ID: 9453365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:11:19.72676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:37.756511
License: Public Domain

KOELSCH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree with the court that the remark in counsel’s opening statement concerning Simpson’s post-accident change in the manner of packaging doors for shipment was unwarranted and constituted prejudicial error. But I do not share the court’s view that this comment, though so gross as to render suspect the amount assessed by the jury as damages and require a new trial on that issue, did not likewise affect the jury’s finding of liability.
The remark related primarily, if not solely, to negligence; its chief vice lay in the impermissible suggestion to the jury that Simpson was at fault [2 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 283 (3d ed. 1940)]; it was not in that class of remarks which are improper principally because of an appeal to bias and sympathy which may unduly enhance damages.
I would remand for a complete new trial.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, concurs, in part.