Balderson v. Monaghan

Decision Date07 December 1925
Docket NumberMo. 15472.
PartiesBALDERSON v. MONAGHAN.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Action by Hattle H. Balderson against James H. Monaghan, by James Monaghan, his guardian ad litem. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Landis & Duncan, of St. Joseph, for plaintiff in error.

Duvall & Boyd, of St. Joseph, for defendant in error.

BLAND, J.

This is a suit for damages arising out of a collision between two automobiles, alleged to have been brought about by the negligence of the defendant, and resulting, according to the petition, in serious and permanent injuries to plaintiff.

It seems that the regular judge before whom the case was tried desired to leave the bench, and called a member of the Buchanan county bar to preside temporarily during the voir dire examination of the jury. Prior to the calling of the temporary judge, it was disclosed by defendant, outside of the hearing of the jury, that he was carrying liability insurance with the Lincoln Casualty Company of Springfield, Ill. While the temporary judge was acting, members of the panel were asked by one of the attorneys for plaintiff whether they were in any way interested in the Lincoln Casualty Company or held a policy or had any interest in any other casualty company engaged in issuing policies of insurance indemnifying operators of automobiles against claims for damages on account of personal injuries. Objection was made to this, and defendant asked that the jury be discharged. The temporary judge did not rule upon the objection, but the regular judge returned, whereupon the objection was renewed. Outside the presence of the jury, plaintiff's counsel made a request that he be allowed to ask the jurors whether they were interested in any manner in any insurance company engaged in the business of issuing policies of insurance to indemnify operators of automobiles against claims for damages on account of personal injuries. Defendant objected to plaintiff's counsel being allowed to ask such a question, and asked that the jury be discharged. Thereupon the court ruled that the question was proper in order for plaintiff to obtain information in making peremptory challenges. Whereupon plaintiff's counsel asked the panel the following question:

"Is any member of the panel interested as a policy holder or otherwise in the Lincoln Casualty Company or any other insurance company engaged in issuing policies of insurance indemnifying operators of automobiles against claims for damages on account of personal injuries?"

Objection was made to the question, and defendant's counsel asked that the jury be discharged. The request was overruled. In response to the question one of the jurors stated that he was a policy holder in the Bulldog Insurance Company, and later in answer to another question stated that he was an agent for the Bulldog Insurance Company; thereupon plaintiff's counsel asked this juror as follows:

"Mr. Barnett, did you say on general examination that you were an agent for the Bulldog Insurance Company?

"Mr. Barnett: Yes, sir.

"Mr. Boyd: Then you are interested besides being a policy holder?

"Mr. Barnett: I am an agent.

"Mr. Landis: Defendant renews his objections and motion to discharge the panel after the examination of Mr. Barnett.

"The Court: The motion is denied."

To which ruling of the court defendant at the time excepted.

There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum $3,500. None of the testimony on the merits has been brought here in the bill of exceptions. The sole point made is that the court erred in overruling the objections to the questions propounded by plaintiff to the jury on the voir dire examination relative to their interest in companies engaged in the business of issuing policies of insurance indemnifying operators of automobiles against claims for damages on account of personal injuries, and in overruling defendant's motion to quash the panel.

It was proper for plaintiff's counsel to ask the jury in reference to the Lincoln Casualty Company. Kinney v. Street Ry. Co., 261 Mo. 97, 114...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Northern v. Chesapeake & Gulf Fisheries Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Julio 1928
    ...274 S.W. 727; Trent v. Printing Co., 141 Mo. App. 437; Pettit v. Goetz Sales Co., 281 S.W. 974; Kelley v. Sinn, 277 S.W. 362; Balderson v. Monaghan, 278 S.W. 783; Campbell v. Pope, 297 S.W. 720; Hill v. Jackson, 272 S.W. 107; Pilkerton v. Miller, 283 S.W. 455; Planet v. McFall, 284 S.W. Mad......
  • Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Diciembre 1932
    ...affect the merits of the action, and the burden is on the appellant to show that the error, if any, was prejudicial. Balderson v. Monaghan, 278 S.W. 783; Wooldridge v. Hopkins, 220 Mo. App. 1034, 278 S.W. 1081; Peetz Bros. Livery & Und. Co. v. Vahlkamp, 11 S.W. (2d) 26; Bishop v. Musick Pla......
  • Northern v. Chesapeake & Gulf Fisheries Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Julio 1928
    ...... S.W. 727; Trent v. Printing Co., 141 Mo.App. 437;. Pettit v. Goetz Sales Co., 281 S.W. 974; Kelley. v. Sinn, 277 S.W. 362; Balderson v. Monaghan, . 278 S.W. 783; Campbell v. Pope, 297 S.W. 720;. Hill v. Jackson, 272 S.W. 107; Pilkerton v. Miller, 283 S.W. 455; Planet v. ......
  • Gately v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 Diciembre 1932
    ...Rys. Co., 227 S.W. 847; Riley v. Independence, 258 Mo. 683; Brice v. Payne, 263 S.W. 1005; Span v. Mining Co., 16 S.W.2d 190; Balderson v. Monaghan, 278 S.W. 783. Defendant's instructions were even more general than plaintiffs; hence, defendant cannot complain that plaintiff was not specifi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT