Edwards v. Hill-Thomas Lime & Cement Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 26226.,26226.
• Citation: 378 Ill. 180,37 N.E.2d 801
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARDS v. HILL-THOMAS LIME & CEMENT CO.

378 Ill. 180

37 N.E.2d 801

EDWARDS

v.HILL-THOMAS LIME & CEMENT CO.

No. 26226.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 18, 1941.

Action for injuries by George Edwards against the Hill-Thomas Lime & Cement Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, 309 Ill.App. 168, 32 N.E.2d 945, which affirmed judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

FARTHING, J., dissenting.Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from City Court of East St. Luis; Ralph Cook, Judge.

Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Wiechert, of East St. Louis, for appellant.

Geers & Goodman, of East St. Louis, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice.

This is an appeal allowed by this court from a judgment of the Appellate Court of the Fourth District affirming a judgment of the city court of East St. Louis, in favor of appellee and against appellant.

The case grows out of an accident which occurred at the intersection of State street with Sixty-first street in the city of East St. Louis. State street runs approximately east and west and is intersected by Sixty-first street which runs approximately north and south. Sixty-first street, as it extends north from State street, is slightly farther east than Sixty-first street extending south from State street. At the time of the accident State street was 60 feet in width. It was improved with an 18-foot concrete slab on either side and a 24-foot cindered strip between the concrete slabs. The north two traffic lanes were used by west-bound traffic. The south two traffic lanes were used by east-bound traffic. At the time in question, appellee was driving a two-ton moving van in an easterly direction on the south side of State street. He intended to turn north on Sixty-first street at the intersection. As he approached the intersection of Sixty-first street he pulled into the cindered center between the two pavement slabs. There is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident. Appellee's contention is that as he approached the intersection of State and Sixty-first streets from the west he drove his truck over into the cindered portion of the street in such manner that it was headed practically toward the northeast corner of the intersection; that a Ford automobile was approaching from the east and behind the automobile was the truck of appellant, also traveling west; that he waited until the automobile passed the intersection and then proceeded to drive upon and across the west-bound traffic lanes on the north side of State street for the purpose of entering Sixty-first street, and that he slowed down his truck until the automobile passed. Appellee testified that at that time appellant's truck was 250 to 300 feet east of the intersection. Another witness, who was riding with appellee in the cab of his truck at the time, testified that it was 150 feet east of the intersection. Appellee's further contention is that the speed of the truck was not reduced and that it was driven into his moving van before he could cross over the west-bound traffic lanes on State street. Appellee and his companion in the cab of the moving van both testified that appellant's truck struck the right hand side of the moving van near the center of the body. These witnesses were corroborated to some considerable extent by a disinterested witness who was standing on the southwest corner of the intersection at the time of the accident.

Appellant's contention is that appellee abruptly turned and drove through the west-bound traffic on State street; that he first struck the Ford automobile that was proceeding west on the north side of State street, in front of appellant's truck, damaged the rear fender of that car, and then veered into and struck appellant's truck. This was the testimony of the truck driver. This witness was substantially corroborated by the testimony of three disinterested witnesses, two of whom were occupants of the automobile which was immediately in front of appellant's truck and another witness who was driving east on State street, following appellee's moving van, as appellee turned left into the intersection.

In view of this sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties involved in the accident, and the testimony of disinterested witnesses tending to corroborate each, and the jury having returned a verdict in favor of the appellee which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding and judgment.

The above reference to the conflicting testimony, and the respective theories and contentions of the parties on the record, demonstrates that the case was close on the facts and was one which the jury might have decided either way. In this situation it is important that the record be free from errors of law, which may have affected the result.

The first error of law urged concerns questions asked the jurors on their voir dire examination. The record shows that before the selection of jurors began, counsel for appellee asked permission of the court to propound to the jurors on their voir dire examination, certain questions as to whether they were interested financially in the insurance company which admittedly had the coverage and was handling the defense of the case. In response to this request made in chambers, and out of the presence of the jury, counsel for appellant stated under oath, in substance, that the insurance company involved had no officers or stockholders in East St. Louis, St. Clair county, Illinois; that said company did have soliciting agents in East St. Louis, none of whom were on the panel of jurors then in attendance upon the court; that while said insurance company might have policyholders in East St. Louis, any judgment in this case could not affect the policyholders because the company was an ‘Old Line Company’ and its policyholders were not liable for assessments to pay judgments. In response to this statement, counsel for appellee contended that appellee was entitled to interrogate the jurors and have their answers in response to the question of whether the jurors, or any of their relatives, owned stock in the insurance company. The trial court ruled this question was proper.

During the examination of jurors counsel for appellee propounded to the first panel of four jurors the following question: ‘Do you own any stock, or is any member of your family employed by the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company?’ To the second panel of four jurors he propounded the question: ‘Do any of you own any stock, or are you employed, or have you been employed, or are any close relatives employed in the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company?’ To the final panel of four jurors the following question was propounded: ‘Do any of you gentlemen own any stock, or are you employed by, or do you have any close relatives employed by the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company?’ To each of these questions a general objection was made and overruled. It is insisted that this was error.

No affidavit was filed by counsel for appellee, and no showing was made giving any reason why it was necessary to ask the questions proposed. The record indicates that he simply made the request, orally, before the judge in chambers. The only reasons given were that the insurance company was conducting the defense and was liable for any judgment that might be rendered against the defendant, and that he desired to ask the questions for the purpose of exercising his right to challenge, if any members of the jury had any financial interest in the insurance company, or if their close relatives had any such interest.

While there is nothing in the...