Billmeyer v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Citation: 108 Mo. App. 6,82 S.W. 536
• Parties: BILLMEYER v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Decision Date: 18 October 1904
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

82 S.W. 536

108 Mo. App. 6

BILLMEYER v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

October 18, 1904.

JURY—IMPARTIALITY—CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE.

1. Where, in a personal injury action, a juror on his voir dire testified that he had a prejudice against defendant, because, through its criminal negligence, it had injured members of his family, that such prejudice would go with him into the jury box, and induce him to require defendant to make a stronger defense than he would require in case of another defendant, it was reversible error to overrule defendant's challenge for cause.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neil Ryan, Judge.

Action by Leroy Billmeyer, by his next friend, Stella Billmeyer, against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Boyle, Priest & Lehman, for appellant. Chas. F. Krone and R. F. Ralph, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

E. J. Meyer, one of the jurors who tried this case, testified on his voir dire as follows: "Q. Have you any prejudice in a case of this kind? A. I ought to have; they came pretty near killing a couple of the members of my family. That would not prejudice me, so far as that goes in this case. Q. You think you could try the case fairly and impartially as far as the transit company? A. I think I could. Q. You would not come in with supposition they were always negligent and careless? A. No, sir. Q. You would give them as fair a trial as you would the plaintiff? A. I would. Q. You do not know Mr. Miller, who represents the transit company? A. No, sir. Q. You are sure you could try the case fairly? A. Yes, sir. Q. You say two members of your family were recently injured by the defendant? A. The criminal carelessness of it caused it. Q. Were they riding in the cars? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they in a collision? A. No, sir. Q. Was it an injury while getting on or off of a car? A. An injury after they got off of the car. Q. That fact of itself has naturally caused some hard feeling against the management, against the transit company, has it not? A. They did not take any interest in the matter at all, and I wanted them to do so. Q. You have some rather hard feeling against them for the way they treated the matter? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have it, and think you have a right to have it? A. Yes, sir. Q. If selected as a juror in this case, as one of the twelve to try it, you would carry with you into the jury box the same feeling that you now have? A. It will not interfere with my decision in any verdict. Q. You would go in the jury box having the same feeling—the hard feeling you think you have the right to have against the transit company? A. I could not get over that. Q. And it would require the defendant to make a stronger defense than if the defendant were some other company, where you had not been injured at all by an act of the other company? A. Yes, sir. Q. In other words, it would require more evidence for you to render a verdict for the transit company than some other defendant? A. Yes, sir. (Defendant's counsel challenge the juror for cause.) By the Court: What is the matter that affects your judgment, or might affect your judgment? A. I don't think it would affect it at all. The Court: What was the basis of your objection to Mr. Meyer? Mr. Miller: He said two members of his family were nearly killed by the transit company, and that left a feeling in his mind against the company. By the Court: Would that affect your judgment in this case? A. I don't think it would; I know it would not. Q. In spite of this accident to the members of your family, you feel you could try the case with absolute fairness, so far as the transit company is concerned? A. Yes, sir."

Opinion.

Action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, while a passenger on one of the defendant's cars, and, it is alleged, through the negligence of the defendant's servants. We will not look further into the record than is necessary to consider an assignment of error based on the overruling by the trial court of the defendant's challenge for cause of a juror who sat in the case. Said juror testified on his examination that he had a prejudice against the defendant company, because it came near killing two members of his family; that they were injured by its criminal carelessness, and the fact had caused him to entertain a hard feeling against the defendant, which he could not get over in the jury box. He testified further as follows: "Q. You would go in the jury box having the same feeling—the hard feeling you think you have the right to have against the transit company? A. I could not get over that. Q. And it would require the defendant to make a stronger defense than if the defendant were some other company where you had...