Court Opinion

ID: 9883307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:39:53.126532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.557329
License: Public Domain

Higgins, J.,
dissenting: In this case the defendant admitted his negligence, leaving only the amount of damages at issue. All pertinent facts are fully set forth in the Court’s opinion. If it be conceded the mention of insurance was improper in the first instance, nevertheless, the trial judge took all necessary precautions to instruct and warn the jury against adding anything to the damages on that account. The plaintiff, a witness in his own behalf, said the defendant’s insurance company had told him the engine mounts on his automobile were broken. At' this juncture the defendant made a motion for a new trial.
Before ruling on the motion for a new trial, Judge Huskins charged the jury at great length that insurance had no bearing on ■the amount of damages, if any, which resulted from the ■ accident. *72Upon inquiry, each of the jurors stated affirmatively that insurance would not influence his answer to the issue of damages. Upon receiving this assurance the court denied the motion for a mistrial.
After the return of the verdict, the judge signed a judgment in accordance therewith. We may rest assured Judge Huskins would not have signed the judgment if he felt the jury had disregarded his instructions and violated its pledge. In order to justify a new trial it is necessary to assume the jurors failed to follow the instructions, failed to keep their individual pledges, and gained their first information the defendant had insurance from the plaintiff’s inadvertent reference. May we not assume the jurors already had knowledge that the State law required a showing of financial responsibility? I think the verdict and judgment should stand.
Sharp, J., joins in this dissent.