Coleman v. Newsome

• Decision Date: 14 June 1934
• Docket Number: No. 9997.,9997.
• Citation: 174 S.E. 923,179 Ga. 47
• Parties: COLEMAN . v. NEWSOME.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

179 Ga. 47

174 S.E. 923

COLEMAN .

v.NEWSOME.

No. 9997.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 14, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the plaintiff, in an action for damages for the death of her husband by being struck by an automobile of the defendant, who carries liability insurance, by timely motion requests the trial judge to qualify the jury by purging the panel of any employees of the insurance carrier, stating that according to information of her counsel there are such employees in the county (though the insurance carrier is not a party to the action), the refusal of the judge so to qualify the jury is reversible error, even though the plaintiff does not affirmatively show upon subsequent investigation that some of the jurors are employees of the insurance carrier.

Certified' Question from Court of Appeals.

Suit between Lantie Coleman and W. E. Newsome. To review the judgment, the first named party brought error to the Court of Appeals, which certifies a question.

Question answered.

The Court of Appeals (in case No. 23168) certified the following question: "Where, in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband by being struck by an automobile of the defendant, it appears that the defendant carries liability insurance, and the plaintiff by timely motion requests the trial judge to qualify the jury by purging the panel of any employees of the insurance carrier, stating that according to information of her counsel there are such employees in the county (the insurance carrier not being a party to the action), is a refusal of the judge so to qualify the jury reversible error, where the plaintiff does not affirmatively show that some of such jurors are employees of the insurance carrier." See Bryan v. Moncrief Furnace Co., 1G8 Ga. 825, 149 S. E. 193; Justices v. Griffin & West Point Plank Boad Co., 15 Ga. 39; Howell v. Howell, 59 Ga. 145; Carter v. State, 106 Ga. 372 (6), 32 S. E. 345, 71 Am. St. Rep. 262; Dees v. State, 41 Ga. App. 321, 152 S. E. 913; Bibb Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 36 Ga. App. 605, 137 S. E. 636; Cobb v. Atlanta Coach Co., 46 Ga. App. 633, 168 S. E. 126, 127."

A. S. Bradley, of Swainsboro, and Herschel E. Smith and Phillips & Abbot, all of Louisville, for plaintiff in error.

Martin, Martin & Snow, of Macon, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, Chief Justice.

The question of the Court of Appeals must be answered in the affirmative; this answer being strictly in accordance with the recent decisions of this court in Atlanta Coach Co....