Cantrell v. Crews, Record No. 990224.
| Docket Nº | Record No. 990224. |
| Citation | 523 S.E.2d 502, 259 Va. 47 |
| Case Date | January 14, 2000 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
523 S.E.2d 502
259 Va. 47
v.
Deborah W. CREWS
Record No. 990224.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
January 14, 2000.
Mark J. Peake (Caskie & Frost, on briefs), for appellants.
A. David Hawkins (Overbey, Hawkins & Selz, on brief), Rustburg, for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
COMPTON, Justice.
This is the appeal of a judgment in a tort action for damages arising from a motor
In January 1995, appellee Deborah W. Crews was operating an automobile that was stopped on a street in the City of Lynchburg. Her vehicle was struck from the rear and she was injured as a result of the negligence of appellant Timothy L. Cantrell, who was operating a truck owned by his employer, appellant Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc. The plaintiff sustained a "soft tissue" injury that was diagnosed as a cervical sprain, for which she brought this action against defendants seeking recovery in damages.
In an October 1998 trial, the defendants admitted liability and the case was tried on the issue of damages only. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff and fixed her damages at $108,812.87. The trial court overruled the defendants' motion to set the verdict aside and entered judgment on the verdict. We awarded defendants an appeal limited to consideration of four assignments of error.
An issue raised by a portion of one of those assignments of error is dispositive of this appeal. The issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a prospective juror who, at the time of trial, was a client of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
There is no dispute in the facts relevant to the issue we decide. The motion for judgment was on stationery of "Law Office/Overbey, Hawkins & Selz/Rustburg, Virginia." The pleading was signed by Mr. Hawkins as "Of Counsel" for "Overbey, Hawkins & Selz." Hawkins appeared at trial as attorney for the plaintiff.
During jury voir dire, after asking whether "anybody" knew the plaintiffs trial attorney, the trial court specified the name of Hawkins' law firm and identified by name each member of the firm, including "Bryan Selz." The court then asked, "Does anybody know any of those individuals or been represented by them or this firm or have any contact with them?"
Responding, prospective juror Holly Clingempeel stated that she knew Selz and said, "He's representing me." When the court asked, "How long ago?", the juror responded, "It's still going on."
Later during voir dire, while being questioned by defendants' attorney, Clingempeel revealed that her representation by Selz arose from "a car accident" and stated that she sustained "[n]eck and back" injuries. She said that she had filed a "lawsuit"; that the suit "is continuing right now"; and that Selz is representing her "in that."
Upon being asked by the court whether the fact that Hawkins or a member of his law firm was "currently" representing her would have "any bearing" on her judgment, Clingempeel responded, "No." She further stated that she could "assure" the court "under oath" that she could "ignore" her representation by the plaintiffs law firm "and be totally fair to both sides."
The trial court denied defendants' motion to strike for cause Clingempeel, as well as two other prospective jurors. In ruling on the motion, the court stated it believed the three jurors "can ignore any personal sort of contact or relationship or association they have with Mr. Hawkins, his firm, . . . and the like and be fair and that's the only test."
Elaborating, the trial court stated: "Campbell County is of such a nature that in this community people are going to know each other and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Csx Transp., Inc., Record No. 090194.
...Id. at 329-30, 619 S.E.2d at 73 (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731, 732 (2001)); accord Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 50, 523 S.E.2d 502, 504 "Parties to litigation are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of persons who `stand indifferent in the......
-
Bay v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0585–11–1.
...se disqualification applied when a venireman was a current client of counsel, id. at 331, 619 S.E.2d at 74–75 (citing Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 49, 523 S.E.2d 502, 503 (2000); City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ctr. Co., 255 Va. 467, 470–71, 498 S.E.2d 917, 918–19 (1998); ......
-
Barrett v. Com., No. 1829-99-2.
...bias or prejudice against either side and established the juror's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 523 S.E.2d 502 (2000); Medici v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 223, 532 S.E.2d 28 (2000). In both Cantrell and Medici, the juror's relationship to counsel......
-
Com. v. Cary, Record No. 050395.
...would be admissible if proffered again. Kanter v. Commonwealth, 171 Va. 524, 532-33, 199 S.E. 477, 481 (1938); see also Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 52, 523 S.E.2d 502, 504 For the same reason, we do not consider the Commonwealth's remaining assignments of error concerning the judgments o......
-
Roberts v. Csx Transp., Inc., Record No. 090194.
...Id. at 329-30, 619 S.E.2d at 73 (quoting Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823, 826, 553 S.E.2d 731, 732 (2001)); accord Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 50, 523 S.E.2d 502, 504 "Parties to litigation are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of persons who `stand indifferent in the......
-
Bay v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0585–11–1.
...se disqualification applied when a venireman was a current client of counsel, id. at 331, 619 S.E.2d at 74–75 (citing Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 49, 523 S.E.2d 502, 503 (2000); City of Virginia Beach v. Giant Square Shopping Ctr. Co., 255 Va. 467, 470–71, 498 S.E.2d 917, 918–19 (1998); ......
-
Barrett v. Com., No. 1829-99-2.
...bias or prejudice against either side and established the juror's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 523 S.E.2d 502 (2000); Medici v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 223, 532 S.E.2d 28 (2000). In both Cantrell and Medici, the juror's relationship to counsel......
-
Com. v. Cary, Record No. 050395.
...would be admissible if proffered again. Kanter v. Commonwealth, 171 Va. 524, 532-33, 199 S.E. 477, 481 (1938); see also Cantrell v. Crews, 259 Va. 47, 52, 523 S.E.2d 502, 504 For the same reason, we do not consider the Commonwealth's remaining assignments of error concerning the judgments o......