Carpenter v. Hyman.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1910 |
| Citation | 67 W.Va. 4 |
| Parties | Carpenter v. Hyman. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1.Jury Competency Prejudice.
The fact that one is prejudiced against the business of selling intoxicating liquors does not render him incompetent as a juror on the trial of an action for damages arising under the liquor law, if he has no prejudice against the party engaged in that business from whom the damages are claimed.
2. Same Competency of Juror Right of Litigant to Examination.
A litigant has the right to ascertain the fitness of the jurors called, by an examination within the scope of that provided by Code 1906, chapter 116, section 17; but the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may properly limit the extent of the examination in relation to any of the qualifications contemplated by that statute.
3. Trial Instructions.
An instruction based upon undisputed facts in evidence is not erroneous merely because it fails to submit those facts with the qualification "if the jury believe from the evidence."
4.Intoxicating Liquors Right to Civil Damages Injury to Means of Support Intoxication of Minor Son.
If a mother has been injured in her means of support by the intoxication of her minor son, she has a right of action against one who unlawfully sold him the liquors which caused in whole or in part the intoxication, although at the time of such injury she was living with the husband and father on whom she de pended partly for support.
5. Trial Instructions Evidence to Support.
In cases arising under the "civil damage law" it is improper to submit to the jury by an instruction whether they shall believe the plaintiff has been injured in person as well as in means of support, when there is no evidence of injury to plaintiff's person.
G. Damages Exemplary Damages.
Whether exemplary damages shall be found, in any case, must be left to the discretion of the jury; it is error to instruct that they should find exemplary damages.
7. Intoxicating Liquors Civil Damage Actions Sufficiency of Evidence.
In "civil damage cases," as in ordinary damage cases, the evidence must afford data, facts and circumstances, reasonably certain, from which the jury may find compensation for the; loss suffered by reason of the injury proved.
Error to Circuit Court, Cabell County. Action by Diantha Carpenter against Sol. J. Hyman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Reversed and new trial awarded.
Marcum & Marcum, for plaintiff in error. Isbell & Perry, for defendant in error.
Robinson, President:
The plaintiff, by the verdict of a jury, recovered a judgment against the defendant, for the sum of three hundred dollars, upon the ground that defendant had caused loss to her means of support by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to her minor son.
The first assignment of error calls into question the sufficiency of the declaration, the demurrer to which was overruled. We find the declaration sufficient. It is not subject to the fault alleged that it does not state the cause of action in a way that affords the defendant a fair opportunity to make a full and complete defense. It is certain to a common intent.
The court refused to ask the jurors, when they were examined as to their qualifications, whether any one of them had such prejudice against the business of selling intoxicating liquors under the license law as would prevent him from giving a person charged with illegal sales a fair and impartial trial. One is not disqualified to act as a juror by the mere fact that he is prejudiced against a business in which one of the parties is engaged, even though the case arose in connection with the exercise of the business, if he has no prejudice against the party himself. 17 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 1129. The fact that one is prejudiced against the sale of intoxicating liquors does not render him incompctent as a juror on the trial of an action for damages arising under the liquor law. 25 Cyc. 282. However, the question that the court declined to submit to the jurors embraces more than the simple inquiry as to prejudice against the business of selling intoxicating liquors. It would have inquired whether or not there existed with any of the jurors a prejudice against the business of weight sufficient to prevent the defendant from having a fair and impartial trial. It would have inquired whether any of the jurors were biasedhot simply against the business but against the defendant because he was engaged in that business. The question related to bias or prejudice against the defendant in person. It is the right of every litigant in cases tried before a jury to have an im partial and unbiased panel. To this end, he has the right to ascertain the fitness of the jurors called, by an examination within the scope of that provided for by our statute on this subject. Code, chapter 116, section 17. In the case under consideration, it appears that the jurors were fully examined as to their qualifications. From the character of the inquiries we must assume that the court explained to them the nature of the action to be tried. They were asked whether any one of them knew any reason why he should not render an impartial verdict between plaintiff and defendant. That inquiry in fact asked for a disclosure of any bias or prejudice against the defendant. So the question that was refused was indeed a repetition of the inquiry, in another form. Because that ques tion was more direct and specific than the inquiry 'which had been made, it would seem that the court should have propounded it. It searched deeper the consciences of the jurors as to their qualifications. The trial court, however, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial