Court Opinion

ID: 9711390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:30:55.896617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.496056
License: Public Domain

Hughes, J.
(dissenting). As indicated by the majority, all issues to be determined were within the province of the jury.
I am of the opinion that the statement by defense counsel to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover if exceeding thirty-five miles per hour, coupled with the court’s remark that “The statement may stand,” prejudiced the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.
In the absence of such remark, the jury might have assessed less than half of the causal negligence to plaintiff. The exchange between court and counsel may well have influenced the jury to make the determination which it did on comparative negligence. In the absence of affidavits from jurors there is, of course, no positive proof. However, that is almost impossible to produce. The results are such that the prejudice' can be detected.
*613At all events the plaintiff is entitled to win or lose after a fair trial, and the defendant should be made to suffer the inconvenience of a new trial because of the prejudicial statement of his counsel. To censure the defendant for the impropriety while allowing him to retain the advantage gained amounts to no rebuke at all. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Broadfoot concurs in this dissent.