Court Opinion

ID: 9865061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:22:02.095846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:00.744314
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Goudy
dissenting.
I agree with the majority opinion except upon the question of the remarks of the trial court to the jury in regard to insurance, which I feel were entirely unwarranted. I appreciate that in recent years the feeling has grown that juries in general are aware that most automobile drivers carry insurance, and that many attorneys representing insurance companies are frank in revealing that fact to a jury. However, in the present case the trial court of its own motion emphasized the insurance feature in such manner as to bring the same sharply to the attention of the jurors, stating, as he did, that the two sets of defendants carried insurance in two different companies, the attorneys for which represented them on the trial. This, in my opinion, was prejudicial error.
The rule in this jurisdiction as to the question of insurance in personal injury cases should not, it appears to me, be extended by statements of trial courts, and *188such extension should not receive the approval of this court. I do not agreé with the majority opinion that this is not a serious question, but merely a “tempest in a teapot.” Ordinarily, jurors look to trial judges as the source of knowledge, and I feel that the voluntary expression of the court here could not but influence the jury, and by this means turn this action into a controversy between plaintiff and the insurance companies, rather than between plaintiff and defendants on the merits.
For the reasons stated the judgment, in my opinion, should be reversed and a new trial granted.