Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. C-7691,C-7691 |
| Parties | Artaruth BABCOCK, et vir, Petitioners, v. NORTHWEST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Kevin Dubose and Jim M. Perdue, Perdue, Turner & Berry, Ray Hensarling, Houston, Tex., for petitioners.
Sam W. Cruse, Jr., Andrews & Kurth, Dion C. Raymos, Ryan & Smith, and John Roberson, John Landa, Jr. and Suzan Cardwell, Hill Parker, Franklin, Cardwell & Jones, Houston, Tex., for respondents.
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The court's opinion of December 14, 1988 is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
This cause concerns the propriety of a trial court's refusal to allow attorneys to question the venire panel about the alleged "lawsuit crisis." Artaruth Babcock and husband, Gifford Babcock, sued respondents, Northwest Memorial Hospital, Dr. E.E. Kearns and Dr. Fred DeFrancesco for damages arising out of alleged medical malpractice. During voir dire, the trial judge refused to allow the Babcocks to question the jury panel about the alleged "lawsuit crisis." The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants in accordance with the jury's verdict. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 751 S.W.2d 277. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court.
Artaruth Babcock broke her pelvis and was hospitalized. During her hospitalization, Mrs. Babcock developed blisters on her heels which allegedly ultimately resulted in the amputation of both her legs. Mrs. Babcock and her husband sued the hospital and her doctors alleging negligence in their care of Mrs. Babcock.
The trial court granted two pre-trial motions in limine. The first motion in limine prohibited "[a]ny mention of the alleged 'liability insurance crisis,' 'medical malpractice crisis', or any similar mention of or questions to potential jurors regarding the current state of affairs in the liability insurance industry." The second motion in limine prohibited "calling the jury's attention to any advertisements either on radio, television, in newspapers or magazines which speak of malpractice crisis and are paid for by and credited to insurance companies." During voir dire, a member of the jury panel stated that he had read articles and advertisements discussing the alleged liability crisis, and his concern for the effect of jury awards on insurance premiums might impede his ability to be impartial. After that juror was struck for cause, the Babcocks renewed their request for permission to question the entire jury panel about the alleged "lawsuit crisis." The trial court again denied the request. The following exchange took place before the bench:
After the jury was selected, the Babcocks for the third time objected to the trial court's refusal to allow questions concerning the alleged "lawsuit crisis" and asked for an opportunity later in the day to include the questions they would have asked the jurors in the record. The objection was overruled and the request denied. 1 After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents. The Babcocks' motion for new trial included an affidavit which delineated the questions they would have asked during voir dire about the "lawsuit crisis."
The Babcocks appealed to the court of appeals claiming the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting voir dire questions about the alleged "lawsuit crisis." The court of appeals, affirming the trial court's judgment, held that since the Babcocks did not timely advance the specific questions they wanted to ask, they could not complain on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the questions.
At issue in this cause is whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting voir dire examination inquiring about the "lawsuit crisis" or "liability insurance crisis" and whether the Babcocks properly preserved error.
We disagree with the court of appeals' conclusion that the Babcocks failed to timely advance their proposed questions and thus failed to preserve error. Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure states:
In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. It is also necessary for the complaining party to obtain a ruling upon the party's request, objection or motion. If the trial judge refuses to rule, an objection to the court's refusal to rule is sufficient to preserve the complaint. It is not necessary to formally except to rulings or orders of the trial court.
The record reflects that the Babcocks adequately apprised the trial court of the nature of their inquiry twice during trial after having originally objected to the trial court's grant of the respondents' motions in limine. During voir dire, the matter arose when a prospective juror expressed doubt about his ability to be impartial because of his concern about the effect of judgments on insurance premiums. Apart from the rest of the panel, the juror was questioned about his concerns for malpractice premiums. The juror answered affirmatively when asked if he had read advertisements about the difficulty of obtaining insurance because of jury verdicts. He stated he believed the assertions made in the advertisements and would be concerned about insurance premiums. After that juror was struck for cause, the Babcocks again requested permission to question the remaining prospective jurors about the "lawsuit crisis." The trial judge denied this request.
The Babcocks made a final objection at the conclusion of the voir dire examination, before any evidence was admitted. The Babcocks re-urged their objection and, while they acknowledged that the trial court's ruling had already been made, they requested an opportunity later in the day to enter in the record the questions they would have asked. The trial judge responded, "[l]et the record show that this matter's already been ruled on twice, that this request that's made is carefully considered by this court and denied."
We hold that the Babcocks properly preserved error in accordance with Tex.R.App.P. 52(a). They presented a timely request to the trial court, stating the specific grounds for the ruling they desired, and obtained a ruling from the court.
The court of appeals held that it was not compelled to find an abuse of discretion by the trial court because the specific questions were not before the trial court at the time of its decision and the offer of such questions by the Babcocks was not timely. This holding is inconsistent with the language of rule 52(a).
Rule 52(a) requires that specific grounds for a ruling be stated if the specific grounds are not apparent from the context. Tex.R.App.P. 52(a). There is no requirement to place specific questions in the record if the nature of the questions is apparent from the context. In this case, the language of the motions in limine and the recorded voir dire of the excused juror makes it obvious what questions the Babcocks wanted to ask. Furthermore, the Babcocks attempted to place their proposed questions into the record, but their request was denied by the trial court.
We now reach the Babcocks' contention that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger v. Sebek
...99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) (holding that "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process"); Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex.1989) (holding that, "[i]n Texas, the right to a fair and impartial trial is guaranteed by the Constitution"). In Texas......
-
Wardell v. McMillan
..."bent of mind" of the jurors cannot be factually assessed. King v. Westlake, 264 Ark. 555, 572 S.W.2d 841 (1978); Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.1989). See also Borkoski v. Yost, 182 Mont. 28, 594 P.2d 688 A current case which provides thoughtful discussion in reco......
-
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez
...in civil and criminal cases are the same,47 voir dire standards should remain consistent. Finally, the Court's decision in Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hospital does not dictate that a trial judge must accept questions that seek to assess jurors' opinions about the weight they will place o......
-
Diamond Offshore Servs. Ltd. v. Williams
...including reference back to limine arguments, shows Diamond offered the evidence at trial for both purposes. See Babcock v. Nw. Mem'l Hosp. , 767 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1989).6 510 S.W.3d 57, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015).7 Id. at 91 (Keyes, J., dissenting).8 Tex. R. Evid . 401 -02......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Tex. 2011).[254] In re Commitment of Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Tex. 2011) (citing Babcock v. Nw. Mem'l Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705, 709 (Tex. 1989)).[255] Murff v. Pass, 249 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2008) (internal citations omitted).[256] See Tex. R. Evid. 614 ("witnesse......
-
Table of Cases
...Life Ins. Co. v. Dellana , 667 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, no writ), §7.28 — B — Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hospital , 767 S. W. 2d 705 (Tex. 1989), §9.05 Bailey v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 27 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.), §1.02.5 Balandran v. Safeco Ins. C......
-
Car Accident Cases
...press or on the television about what is referred to as the “Liability Crisis” or Tort Reform?” [ Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp. , 767 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1989), holds that plaintiffs are permitted to question venire panel about alleged “lawsuit crisis” or “liability crisis” and a failure......
-
Trial: Part One Voir Dire to Close of Evidence
...1940, writ dism’d). For these reasons, broad latitude in questioning the jury panel is allowed. Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hospital , 767 S. W. 2d 705, 709 (Tex. 1989); Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Loesch , 538 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). There is no statut......