Dubose v. Ross
Decision Date | 18 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A0199,A96A0199 |
Citation | 222 Ga.App. 99,473 S.E.2d 179 |
Parties | DUBOSE v. ROSS. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Crim & Bassler, Kimberly L. Schwartz, Atlanta, for appellant.
Freedman & Sinowski, Thomas C. Sinowski, Marc H. Bardack, Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff Margaret Ross sued defendant Antonio Dubose for negligence after she was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by defendant's failure to yield the right-of-way to plaintiff. Defendant made a motion in limine requesting that no reference to insurance be made during the trial. The trial court granted the motion and ruled that there would be no mention of insurance other than qualification of the jurors as to defendant's insurance company.
During the trial, plaintiff testified on direct examination that defendant was drunk or "high" at the time of the accident. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked plaintiff how she could tell defendant was drunk, and how close she was to defendant. In response to defense counsel's line of questioning, plaintiff explained that although they were some distance from each other after moving their cars from the roadway, plaintiff and defendant were close enough to have a conversation. In describing the content of that conversation, plaintiff related defendant's admissions of fault and mentioned that plaintiff had asked defendant whether he had insurance, to which defendant responded in the affirmative. Immediately after this testimony, defense counsel made a motion for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion and, after rebuking plaintiff's counsel, instructed the jury that insurance had nothing whatsoever to do with the case and that any reference made thereto must be disregarded. The trial then continued without further mention of insurance, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff.
In his sole enumeration, defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to grant defendant's motion for a mistrial. Concluding that the trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion, we disagree and affirm. See Ga. Power Co. v. Hinson, 179 Ga.App. 263, 270(7), 346 S.E.2d 73 (1986).
As a general rule, the fact that a party has liability insurance is not admissible into evidence, and the disclosure of that fact to the jury is grounds for a mistrial. McKin v. Gilbert, 208 Ga.App. 788(1), 432 S.E.2d 233 (1993); Thomas v. Newnan Hosp., 185 Ga.App. 764(1), 365 S.E.2d 859 (1988). Nevertheless, " Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 168 Ga.App. 874, 881(3), 311 S.E.2d 193 (1983). See McKinney & Co. v. Lawson, 180 Ga.App. 550, 553(2), 349 S.E.2d 763 (1986) rev'd on other grounds, 257 Ga. 222, 357 S.E.2d 786 (1987).
In the instant case, the trial judge exercised his discretion by determining that plaintiff's testimony regarding insurance was not so harmful nor prejudicial in nature to defendant that a mistrial was necessary. He therefore denied defendant's motion for a mistrial and issued a curative instruction immediately after the reference to insurance. We cannot conclude as a matter of law that determination constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion in light of the fact that the jury had already been made aware of the existence of liability insurance when the trial court qualified the jury members as to any relationship they might have with defendant's insurance company, as authorized by Georgia law. See Gonzalez v. Wells, 213 Ga.App. 494, 445 S.E.2d 332 (1994). Moreover, the jury could and should have assumed that defendant had liability insurance because Georgia law requires motorists to obtain a minimum of $15,000 in bodily injury liability coverage. OCGA §§...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doherty v. Brown
...of the jury or its consequences avoided by proper cautionary instructions from the court." (Punctuation omitted.) Dubose v. Ross , 222 Ga.App. 99, 100, 473 S.E.2d 179 (1996).During phase III of the trial to determine punitive damages, the following exchange took place during direct examinat......
-
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Carder
...16. See generally Goss v. Total Chipping, 220 Ga. App. 643, 644(2)(a), 469 S.E.2d 855 (1996). 17. See, e.g., Dubose v. Ross, 222 Ga.App. 99, 100, 473 S.E.2d 179 (1996). 18. 171 Ga.App. 536, 537(2), 320 S.E.2d 604 19. See OCGA § 9-11-32(c) (introduction in evidence of deposition or any part ......
-
In re Glass
...existence, or nonexistence, of insurance would not have been admissible into evidence at the state court trial. See Dubose v. Ross, 473 S.E.2d 179, 180 (Ga.Ct.App.1996) ("As a general rule, the fact that a party has liability insurance is not admissible into evidence. . . ."). There is no q......
-
Hossain v. Nelson, A98A1299.
...165, 170, 268 S.E.2d 676 (1980). Nor is this a case where only a brief reference to insurance was made. Compare Dubose v. Ross, 222 Ga. App. 99, 100-101, 473 S.E.2d 179 (1996) (trial court rebuked counsel and gave curative instruction after plaintiff mentioned that defendant told her he had......