Court Opinion

ID: 9625071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:27:03.381463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:00.284923
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent in this case for the reason that counsel for the plaintiff made an improper argument to the jury when at least three times in words not exactly the same, he said that the two corporations did not give a damn whether they injured plaintiff. It was not made by an'overzealous novice but by a capable lawyer with wide1 experience in the trial of negligence cases both for plaintiff and defendant.
It is true that counsel for defendant did not object at the time the prejudicial statements were made but he did object at the close of plaintiff’s arguments, both opening and closing. One of the most objectionable statements came very close to the end of argument. Those who have tried jury cases know that it is quite dangerous to make an objection to.a part of a closing argument because of the possible resentment on the part of the jury to such action. Especially is this so if the objection is not sustained, which appeared unlikely here by the abrupt manner in which the objection made was overruled. I consider the objections timely and adequate.
A trial judge should on his own motion strike improper statements and admonish counsel to make no further such remarks. This Court should not approve such conduct on the part of counsel.
It is unfortunate that the plaintiff should suffer because of conduct of counsel but such arguments will continue unless this Court plainly disapproves same. This is a case, however, that plaintiff would not be injured by delay because he has settled his judgment against one defendant for a substantial amount. A new judgment for a larger amount may be recovered if plaintiff’s injuries are as serious as maintained.
The majority cites our opinion in Hazelrigg Trucking Co. v. Duvall, Okl., 261 P.2d 204. That case approves an argument which in my judgment was highly improper and I would do nothing "either by word or' deed’’ that would indicate in any way that I thought such statements appropriate.
This case should go back for another trial. Liability is admitted. It is simply a question to determine the extent of plaintiff’s injuries and what he should receive by. way of damages for same in a trial fairly and impartially conducted, entirely free of. inflammatory argument.