Dennis v. Hulse, A-9011
| Decision Date | 21 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-9011,A-9011 |
| Citation | 362 S.W.2d 308 |
| Parties | Fred DENNIS et al., Petitioners, v. Dorothy HULSE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Harkness & Friedman, Texarkana, for petitioners.
Brown & Brown, Texarkana, for respondent.
Fred Dennis et al, petitioners, brought this suit against Dorothy Hulse, respondent, to recover for personal injuries sustained by Dennis, his wife, and their minor child in an automobile collision. One of the vehicles was driven by Dennis, and respondent was the operator of the other. Respondent filed a cross-action against Dennis. Petitioners' total damages were affixed by the jury at $1,000.00, and judgment was rendered on the verdict in their favor for that amount. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, because it concluded that respondent was probably prejudiced by the introduction of testimony indicating that respondent carried liability insurance and by a subsequent instruction from the court that she did not. Tex.Civ.App., 356 S.W.2d 203.
While Mrs. Dennis was on direct examination, counsel for petitioners inquired whether she had a conversation with respondent on the night of the accident and what the latter told her. The witness answered 'Well, she told me-the first thing she said to me is, Respondent immediately moved the court to discharge the jury and declare a mistrial. During the recess that followed, the court learned that respondent did not have liability insurance. The motion for a mistrial was denied, and over respondent's objection the court instructed the jury that
We agree with the respondent that the mention of insurance by Mrs. Dennis was improper, and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that respondent had no liability coverage. According to the Annotation in 4 A.L.R.2d 761, the courts of other jurisdictions are not in agreement as to the propriety of permitting the defendant to establish that he is not insured after the introduction of evidence indicating that he is. That is not the problem here, and as pointed out in Gilmer v. Griffin, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 252, (wr. ref. n. r. e.), the question of whether or not the defendant is protected by liability insurance is wholly immaterial to any issue in a personal injury action of this nature. If anything is said from which the jury might reasonably infer that the defendant is insured, the court may either ordre a mis trial or instruct the jury not to consider the improper statement and then await the verdict before determining whether to grant a new trial. It should not, however, magnify the matter and perhaps lead the jurors to believe that insurance is a material consideration by advising them that the defendant does not have such protection.
Respondent argues that the mention of insurance always requires a reversal of the case, because the error is regarded as incurable. We do not agree. When the courts say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boddy v. Canteau, 14747
...require a reversal in a personal injury case. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Gregory, 387 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Sup.1965). In Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Sup.1962), the Court said: 'Under our practice an appellate court is not authorized to reverse merely because the record discloses s......
-
Turner v. General Motors Corp.
...standard was not reasonably calculated to cause and probably did not cause the rendition of an improper verdict. See Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.1962) and Walker v. Texas Employers' Insurance Assoc., 155 Tex. 617, 291 S.W.2d 298 (1956). It was established by an employee-witness pre......
-
In re Marriage of Runberg
...298, 301 (1956), the Court held that the rule of presumed prejudice no longer applies in Texas. After that decision, in Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1962), the Court held that an appellant must also show the error probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Later,......
-
Alamo Community College v. Browning Const.
...are incurable error, implying it did not have to object. This proposition, however, does not square with Texas law. See Dennis v. Hulse, 362 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1962) (holding that the mention of insurance does not always require reversal and that the party appealing must also show that it......