Court Opinion

ID: 9578236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:43:12.895958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:20.586098
License: Public Domain

Dell, Chief Justice
(concurring).
Based on such cases as Storhaugen v. Motor Truck Service Co. 171 Minn. 47, 213 N. W. 372; Martin v. Schiska, 183 Minn. 256, 236 N. W. 312; and Odegard v. Connolly, 211 Minn. 342, 1 N. W. (2d) 137, all written by the late Mr. Justice Holt, I am of the opinion that the statement of the trial judge made to the prospective jurors while they were being examined, which is quoted in the majority opinion, was in all respects proper.
District Court Rule 31 (1957 M. S. A. p. 4643) came into existence because of Prescott v. Swanson, 197 Minn. 325, 267 N. W. 251.2 The practice suggested in that opinion and district court rule was found unworkable and cumbersome, particularly in rural areas where most jurors were stockholders in creameries, oil companies, farm insurance companies, cooperative stores, elevators, telephone companies, and numerous other corporations. To extricate this type of company and *293to determine whether prospective jurors were interested in the insurance company involved became so burdensome, and in some cases prejudicial, that the procedure was largely abandoned.
In McKeown v. Argetsinger, 202 Minn. 595, 604, 279 N. W. 402, 407, 116 A. L. R. 398, this court stated:
“* * * Plaintiff had the right to interrogate prospective jurors for the purpose of discovering whether they were interested in defendant’s insurer, and to show that defendant was being defended by the insurer as part of the inquiry.”
Rom v. Calhoun, 227 Minn. 143, 34 N. W. (2d) 359, is clearly distinguishable. In that case in chambers counsel for defendant gave the name of the insurance company insuring defendant but stated that the company denied liability because the insured had not reported the accident promptly and objected to plaintiff’s counsel questioning the jurors concerning their interest in the company. Defendant’s counsel conceded that he was employed by the insurance company but would not flatly state that the company was not interested in the case. Upon returning to the courtroom and in examining the jurors, plaintiff’s counsel asked whether any of them were interested in the named insurance company as the trial judge stated might be done. Thereupon counsel for defendant made an objection calculated to impress upon the jury that the company had denied liability and that the question asked was not justified and was made for the purpose of prejudicing the jury. This court reversed since (227 Minn. 147, 34 N. W. [2d] 362) “There was no justification for imputing to plaintiff’s counsel any impropriety or unfair tactics in following the trial court’s decision on the matter.”
Nowadays jurors know that generally speaking insurance companies are interested in all personal injury actions. In my opinion the rule ought to be that either the court or counsel may inform the jury of the name of the company, stating that it may be interested in the outcome of the litigation, and beyond that nothing further should be said. I concur in the result only.

 See, Santee v. Haggart Const. Co. 202 Minn. 361, 278 N. W. 520.