Fedorinchik v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 22 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 64.,64. |
| Parties | FEDORINCHIK v. STEWART. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Alexander Fedorinchik against Albert E. Stewart arising out of an automobile accident. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Homer Ferguson, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
J. Charles Wood, of Detroit (Maxwell W. Benjamin, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Howard D. Brown, of Detroit (Philip N. Marentay, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
The decisive question presented by this appeal is whether plaintiff, against whom the jury rendered a verdict, was erroneously deprived of a fair examination of the jurors on their voir dire. Plaintiff's suit arises out of an automobile accident which occurred while defendant was insured in the Detroit Automobile Insurance Exchange, a mutual insurance company. The suit was defended by the insurance company's attorneys. The circuit judge, acting under Court Rule No. 37 (1933), conducted the voir dire examination of the jurors. Before the jury was drawn, he was advised by plaintiff's counsel that in the City of Detroit and in Wayne county, where the suit was pending there was a very large number of persons insured in this mutual company, that it was one of the largest insurers of automobile risks in that locality, and that this suit was being defended by the company's attorneys; and defendant's counsel upon being asked could not say the number of policy holders in this company in Wayne county was not over 50,000. It was also made known to the circuit judge that this company was not only a mutual company but that ‘it returns dividends each year to its members, to its policy holders.’
Upon being called to the jury box the examination by the trial judge disclosed that none of the jurors knew anything about the case itself, nor did any juror know either of the parties litigant or their attorneys, that none of the jurors or their respective wives or husbands were engaged in the insurance business, that all except two of the jurors drove automobiles. Each juror asserted there was no reason why he or she could not sit in the case as a fair and impartial juror.
But previous to the jurors being called plaintiff's counsel, after making the showing above related, urged upon the trial judge plaintiff's right, as a basis of challenging for cause or peremptorily, to have inquiry made of each juror as to whether he or she was insured in a mutual automobile insurance company, and if so in what company, and also whether an immediate member of any juror's family was engaged by an insurance company. Examination of the jurors in these respects was denied by the circuit judge, and plaintiff took an exception to such denial.
In so ruling there was error. It is indispensable to a fair trial that a litigant be given a reasonable opportunity to ascertain on the voir dire whether any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tyburski
...potential bias so that challenges for cause, or even peremptory challenges, can be intelligently exercised. Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 438-439, 286 N.W. 673 (1939). This Court has long recognized the importance of a voir dire that allows the court and the parties to discover hid......
-
Com. v. Nassar
...350 Ill. 148, 152--156, 182 N.E 726 (in which the judge was shown to have engaged in somewhat summary conduct); Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 438--439, 286 N.W. 673 (no inquiry about a statutory disqualification); Oden v. State, 166 Neb. 729, 730-- 735, 90 N.W.2d 356, 73 A.L.R.2d 1......
-
Fosness v. Panagos
...cases cited by Justice Souris, commencing with Church v. Stoldt, 215 Mich. 469, 184 N.W. 469, and concluding with Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 286 N.W. 673. Those very cases were considered when we announced Darr's rule. See pages 395, 396 and 397 of Darr's report, 94 N.W.2d No ot......
-
Howard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...217 Kan. 17, 535 P.2d 441 (1975); Kanzenbach v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 273 Wis. 621, 79 N.W.2d 249 (1956); Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 286 N.W. 673 (1939). It seems to us, however, the better rule is one which depends upon a particular venireperson's ability to decide the case......