American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger
| Citation | 132 S.E.2d 794,108 Ga.App. 262 |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40126,40126,2 |
| Parties | AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY v. R. B. SECKINGER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Brannen, Clark & Hester, Fred S. Clark, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Charlton E. Clark, James B. Blackburn, Savannah, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Parties to civil cases are entitled to a panel of 24 competent and impartial jurors from which to strike a jury, Code § 59-704, and a juror who is not impartial should not be placed upon the panel. Mayor &c. of Columbus v. Goetchius, 7 Ga. 139; Justices of Inferior Court of Pike County v. Griffin & West Point Plank Rd. Co., 15 Ga. 39, 54(1); Howell v. Howell, 59 Ga. 145, 150; Atlantic Coast L. R. v. Bunn, 2 Ga.App. 305 (1), 58 S.E. 538. Accordingly, where a prospective juror in answer to a question propounded by counsel for the plaintiff stated that he did not know whether he could be impartial or not, it was not error for the court to excuse him.
(a) Special ground 1 of the motion assigning error on the action of the court excluding this juror does not show that this action was harmful or prejudicial to the defendant since it does not appear therefrom that the defendant was deprived of a qualified panel of 24 jurors from which to strike a jury. See Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 736, 739(3), 39 S.E. 337.
2. Where the defendant introduces no evidence and claims the right to open and conclude, it is reversible error to deny it this right. It is not a requirement that the defendant announce prior to the trial that it admits a prima facie case and assumes the burden of proof in order that it exercise this right. Auto Mutual Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400, 192 S.E. 640; Jones v. Chambers, 94 Ga.App. 433(2), 95 S.E.2d 335; Sutherland v. Woodring, 216 Ga. 621, 118 S.E.2d 482. The trial court erred in denying to the defendant the right to open and close and in thereafter overruling ground 2 of the motion for a new trial complaining of this action.
3. Special grounds 3 and 4 complain because the court overruled motions for a mistrial made by the defendant on account of alleged improper argument of counsel for plaintiff. The alleged improper argument was as follows: 'It is not the policy of the law to force a policy holder of limited means into litigation with an insurance company of large means where there is a refusal in bad faith to pay and allow the insurance company to escape with impunity,' and that the defendant 'merely sat on its bank roll and refused to pay the claim.' In their ground for a mistrial counsel for the defendant contended that these remarks were not referable to or authorized by any evidence introduced in the trial of the case and were not based on any issue in the case. The fact that there may be differences between the parties respecting their financial ability and that one party is better able to respond in damages or to pay the expenses of litigation than the other are not proper matters to be argued to the jury. Such argument presents no issue for the jury's consideration and is calculated to inject irrelevant and prejudicial matters into the case and to influence the jury to base its verdict on them. John J. Woodside Storage Co. v. Reese, 105 Ga.App. 602, 604(6), 125 S.E.2d 556. The trial court erred in overruling special grounds 3 and 4 which assigned error on the denial of defendant's motion for a mistrial on account of this improper argument.
4. Special grounds 5 and 6 assign error on lengthy extracts from the charge. The assignment of error is, in substance, that these extracts were not authorized by the evidence and were unsound as abstract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...case, unless the evidence demands a verdict. Smith v. Smith, 228 Ga. 820, 823, 188 S.E.2d 507 (1972); American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger, 108 Ga.App. 262, 263, 132 S.E.2d 794 (1963). See also OCGA § 9-10-186. Here, the defendants rested after the plaintiffs' case without calling any witnesses; ......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 41259
...Co. v. Martin, 44 Ga.App. 545(2), 162 S.E. 288; Royal Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 105 Ga.App. 746(3), 125 S.E.2d 709.' American Casualty Co. v. Seckinger, 108 Ga.App. 262(5), 132 S.E.2d 794. 'The jury are not authorized to find that the refusal to pay was in bad faith, merely because, in their opini......
-
Home Indem. Co. v. Godley, 45090
...747, 125 S.E.2d 709.' St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Postell, 113 Ga.App. 862, 863, 149 S.E.2d 864, 866; American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger, 108 Ga.App. 262, 132 S.E.2d 794; Lincoln Life Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Anderson, 109 Ga.App. 238(3), 136 S.E.2d 1; U.S. Fidelity &c Co. v. Biddy Lumber Co.,......
-
Jones v. Cloud
...enemy, or one who will allow his prejudices to control him.' McLaren v. Birdsong & Sledge, 24 Ga. 265, 269. Cf. American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger, 108 Ga.App. 262(1), 132 S.E.2d 794. 'A disqualified juror, propter affectum, on a panel, is the same as no juror, and the panel from which to strik......