Court Opinion

ID: 9550176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:30:53.743022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:21.363507
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice
(concurring specially) :
The affidavit and testimony of the insurance adjustor revealed 1) that he, or rather the company for which he was employed, had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation; 2) the rather “unusual” circumstances surrounding the meeting of the adjustor with the juror when such meeting, apparently, was not necessary to the completion of the adjustor’s business with the juror; and 3) the fact that the adjustor freely discussed with the juror the various witnesses who had testified in the cause and expressed to the juror his (the adjustor’s) opinion as to the credibility and expertise of certain of the witnesses. The adjustor also discussed other facets of the case — such as the adjustor’s opinion of the plaintiff.
In view of the extent of the contact by the insurance adjustor with the juror in which the issues in the case and witnesses, etc., were openly discussed, it is reasonable to infer that prejudice resulted therefrom which prevented the parties, both the plaintiff and defendant, from receiving a fair trial.
My view is that the testimony of the juror was merely cumulative to the testimony of the adjustor and that a new trial could and should be granted upon the testimony of the latter standing alone.
I am authorized to state that WILLIAMS and HODGES, JJ., concur with the views herein above expressed.