Court Opinion

ID: 9578819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:48:42.052954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:30.451183
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I address my dissenting opinion to that portion of the majority opinion which reverses for a new trial on assertions of misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel and the trial judge’s lack of firmness and control.
After perusing a lengthy record of 640 pages, I conclude the defendant had a fair and just trial. In my opinion the case, though heatedly contested and at times ov-erzealously expounded, was properly tried to a jury by competent counsel on both sides and presided over by a conscientious and able judge.
In my opinion the most serious assertion of misconduct was plaintiff counsel’s statement in his closing argument at pages 470 and 471, concerning the claim agent of the defendant, which statements, I agree, were lacking in propriety and outside the record. That portion of the closing argument should have been, even in absence of a proper objection, stricken and the jury admonished not to consider it in their deliberation. However, in view of the strong and convincing evidence in support of abolition of the signed release and the diminutive amount of damages awarded by the jury, considering the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, I fail to find the statements of counsel and other assertions of misconduct were so prejudicial as to justify a reversal for a new trial.