Court Opinion

ID: 9601572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:47:04.344037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:14.540076
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Virgil Lafever was killed in a collision between an automobile driven by himself and a truck belonging to the defendant. There was one witness who testified for the plaintiff who claimed he saw the accident. He was riding in the back seat of the automobile and was the father-in-law of the deceased Lafever. A man by the name of Harmon was riding in the front seat with Lafever, but he did not testify. The father-in-law testified that the collision occurred on the south side of the road, the automobile side. The driver of the truck testified the collision occurred on the north side. All physical evidence in the way of debris and the location of the truck and automobile after they came to rest indicated it was on the north side. There was testimony by substantial witnesses that the deceased Lafever was under the influence of intoxicating liquor a short time before the accident. There was also-evidence to the contrary. There was sufficient evidence to necessitate the submission of the case to the jury, but I think *211the trial court erred in not granting a new trial for three reasons. The first reason is that it was error to permit the so-called expert, W. L. James, to testify as to how the debris got on the north side of the road. I think that the reasoning on this point in Hamre v. Conger, 357 Mo. 497, 209 S.W.2d 242, is so sound that it should be followed in this case. The crude wheel that was used by the witness and his testimony based on conjecture were bound to mislead the jury.
There was no propriety in permitting the corroboration of the father-in-law when he testified the accident happened on the south side of the road. The fact that he admitted that most of the debris was on the north side of the road did not make the expert testimony admissible.
The second reason that this case should be reversed is that plaintiff’s counsel made improper statements in closing argument which from the size of the verdict unquestionably influenced the jury. I submit that the following statements made by counsel for plaintiff constitute reversible error:
“You know, it is unpleasant, it’s awfully hard to talk about hunger and poverty. It’s a difficult thing to think about; little barefoot children when there is frost on the ground. It’s hard to think about little blue bodies caused by lack of clothing when the north wind blows. It’s unpleasant to think about widows ' and orphans wearing cast off rags from the neighbors. It’s hard to think about a fevered brow that has to be treated as a charity patient. Gentlemen, about two weeks from now in a little cross-roads country town, if Mr. Pierson and Mr. Edwards have their way, there will be a small boy pressing a little face against the showcase of a show window on the street * * * ”
“By Mr. Seay: I would like to know if counsel is going to continue interrupting me. He has had his say, he’s had forty minutes. I hope he doesn’t interrupt again.—
“Then, there might be in that window that Mr. Pierson objects to, a little pair of cowboy boots, and when he turns his face away he looks back over his shoulder again and wonders. The world passes him by. He’s just an orphan. He will wonder why he can’t have things like kids that have a daddy.”
“By Mr. Seay: Thank you sir. — ■ And when those two little orphan girls and their mother bow their heads in prayer, on the day when the Christian world celebrates the birth of the Christ child, they will not thank God for a bountiful supply of food on the table; they will ask God that they be permitted to live, because the table may be bare.” (CM — 358-360)
That argument unduly appeals to the sympathetic nature of the average juror and should not be made. In 53 Am.Ju'r.Trial, Sec. 496, this statement is made:
“While sympathy for suffering and indignation at wrong are worthy sentiments, they are not safe visitors to the courtroom. They may not enter the jury box, nor be heard on the witness stand, nor speak too loudly through the voice of counsel. It is, therefore, improper for counsel to appeal to the sympathy of the jury, either directly or indirectly, as, for example, by asking the jury, in a personal injury action, to put themselves in the plaintiff’s place, if they would go through life in the condition of the injured plaintiff, or would want members of their family to go through life crippled. In a few cases, counsel arguing to juries have attempted to invoke sympathy by speaking, without justification in the evidence, either eulogistically or disparagingly of third persons who may have been casually connected with the case or the parties to the controversy. This conduct is always improper.”
We held that it was improper to argue that a corporation could have no sympathy as it stressed things that were not a proper element of damage. Green Construc*212tion Company v. Lampe, 174 Okl. 351, 50 P.2d 286.
In my opinion this argument was responsible both for the verdict for plaintiff and the amount of the verdict.
The third reason this case should be reversed is that the size of the verdict shows that it was not rendered by a fair and impartial jury. The jury’s verdict was for $79,375. There was no evidence to justify such a verdict. The most the deceased ever made was $3,000 a year. He was a tenant farmer and laborer. There was some evidence that he traded in stock but this was very sketchy. He could not read and write. He was thirty-seven years old and at the peak of his earnings in the type of work he was equipped to do.
I have been unable to find any case where the maximum income of the deceased was $3,000 dollars'annually that a recovery of almost $2,000 a year for the life expectancy was allowed. The value of the dollar does not enter in so’ much in a case of this kind, but it is what the deceased would have made and what part of his earnings would have gone to the wife and children.
I think that the verdict is so patently the result of bias and prejudice that the case should be re-tried.
I dissent.