Court Opinion

ID: 9541099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:49.741037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:34.380352
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
dissenting: For reasons hereafter expressed, I must respectfully dissent. No challenge was made in the district court or in this court that the verdict returned by the jury was excessive, and the record in fact discloses the plaintiff was quite seriously injured. The plaintiff has since died, and the record does not reveal whether her injuries may have shortened her life. No question of either parties’ coverage by insurance was injected during the trial, nor was there any suggestion in the record that either party carried liability insurance. The jury’s discussion as to insurance was only general as it affected the public and no one purported to discuss or to state that the defendant, Mrs. White, had insurance. This court has more than once held that speculation by a jury that the defend*285ant was insured did not constitute prejudicial error. In Newell v. City Ice Co., 140 Kan. 110, 34 P. 2d 558, it was said:
“. . . No juror testified that he was influenced by what seems to be random statements of possible liability insurance or by the additional statement that one juror said that such cases were taken by an attorney on contingent fees which reduced the net amount the plaintiff would receive. Here it was casually mentioned in the jury room that such companies as defendant were required to have liability insurance, and the juror did not know that defendant had such insurance, but possibly it had. It was merely ‘idle talk back and forth’ . . .” (l.c. 113.)
The court’s decision in this case will make it extremely difficult to sustain a verdict for personal injuries. It may always be possible for the insurer, after an adverse verdict, to dig up evidence that members of the jury discussed attorney fees and insurance coverage in their deliberation notwithstanding the fact the evidence disclosed no insurance coverage, nor was insurance injected into the case by counsel. In Anderson v. Thompson, 137 Kan. 754, 22 P. 2d 438, it was said:
“Public policy forbids that after the jury has tried the case the court shall, on motion for new trial, proceed to try the jury. A verdict may not be impeached by an inquiry which reaches a juror’s views or the reasons for those views (L. & W. Rly. Co. v. Anderson, 41 Kan. 528, 21 Pac. 588), or which reaches what influenced those views (Matthews v. Langhofer, 110 Kan. 36, 202 Pac. 634; Jones v. Webber, 111 Kan. 650, 207 Pac. 837; Stone v. City of Pleasanton, 115 Kan. 378, 223 Pac. 312). Besides that, the jury being what it is, jurors will act like human beings in the jury room, and will indulge in bluster and hyperbole and animated irrelevancies. Not only does the law presume a juror respects the obligation of his oath and votes his convictions, but generally he in fact does so; and due allowance must be made for some exuberance in jury-room discussion or the court must keep on granting new trials in important cases until a perfectly spiritless jury can be secured . . .” (1. c. 758.)
See, also, Sphon v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines, 142 Kan. 595, 50 P. 2d 1001, and Furstenberg v. Wesley Medical Center, 200 Kan. 277, 436 P. 2d 369.
While the court’s decision may tend to reduce liability insurance premiums, it will also tend to eliminate coverage of liability insurance procured by the people of this state to cover loss in damages for personal injuries or property damage which they may sustain. Moreover, it is submitted that jurors will continue to discuss the matter of attorney fees and of insurance coverage in their deliberation. It is general knowledge that most drivers today have liability insurance, and neither party to a lawsuit should be prejudiced by *286matters which may be prompted by the juror’s own experience and common knowledge of the affairs of mankind. Jurors are not expected to dispense with their common knowledge the moment the door of the jury room closes upon them. In fact, the Pattern Instructions for Kansas recognizes a juror’s right to use in his deliberation his knowledge and experience possessed in common with mankind generally. (PIK 2.220.)
This case is to be distinguished from other cases in which extrinsic evidence was brought into the jury room and entered into the jury’s deliberation. Here, there was no more than a discussion of the possibility of insurance and no one presumed to have any definite reliable information on that subject. No juror testified he was influenced by statements in the jury room of how much insurance the law required a person to carry, or by the additional statement that attorneys “get a big liook’ out of everything,” which would reduce the net amount the plaintiff would receive. There is nothing to indicate the verdict was based on the existence or nonexistence of any amount of insurance. In Brown v. Hardin, 197 Kan. 517, 419 P. 2d 912, it was said:
“. . . There is no suggestion of extrinsic misconduct of any juror, no claim of personal knowledge on the part of any juror or no indication of outside influence as was true in cases relied on by plaintiff. Human nature being what it is, if every wild expression of opinion made in a jury room in the throes of hammering out a verdict could be made the basis for retrial jury verdicts could seldom be preserved. Such inquiries into the validity of jury verdicts, based on mental processes of the jurors, are foreclosed in Kansas, formerly by case law, now by statute. (See Kincaid v. Wade, 196 Kan. 174, 410 P. 2d 333; K. S. A. 60-441.)” (l.c. 523.)
With respect to the statement by the district court that the verdict was the largest one ever recovered in Wabaunsee County, it is suggested that Wabaunsee County jurors also know that the price of beefsteak has indeed gone up over the years.
In my judgment, the defendant failed to sustain affirmatively the burden of showing that matters relating to her probable insurance coverage and attorney fees resulted in prejudice to her substantial rights. Certainly, K. S. A. 60-454 has no application. I would reverse the judgment of the district court granting the defendant a new trial on any issue.
O’Connor, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.