Grossfeld v. Braverman

• Decision Date: 08 January 1954
• Docket Number: No. 56,56
• Citation: 101 A.2d 824,203 Md. 498
• Parties: GROSSFELD v. BRAVERMAN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 498

203 Md. 498

101 A.2d 824

GROSSFELD v. BRAVERMAN.

No. 56.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 8, 1954.

Morton E. Rome, Baltimore (Rome & Rome and H. Ross Black, Jr., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Max R. Israelson and Melvin J. Sykes, Baltimore (Joseph I. Pines, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

The sole question raised on this appeal is whether the court erred in propounding certain questions to prospective jurors on their voir dire. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has failed to print in his appendix the evidence relating to the merits of the case. We think it was unnecessary to print such evidence, where the appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; the questions objected to are printed, and the nature of the case is apparent. The motion is denied.

As the court stated to the jury panel, the action was 'one in which the plaintiff requests damages for injuries which she sustained while riding as a passenger, an invited guest in an automobile of her brother, alleged to have been caused by the brother's negligence. The Plaintiff is the sister of the Defendant. It has been requested by counsel that certain questions be propounded to the Jurors, * * *. You have an exception to this, Mr. Black. I am doing it at the request and insistence of counsel for the Plaintiff.' The questions had previously been submitted to the court and to opposing counsel.

The court then put to the panel of jurors the following questions:

'(1) Do any of the members of the jury have any preconceived objections to a suit by a passenger, an invited guest, against the driver that would prevent you from fairly and impartially deciding such a case? If any of the jurors do raise your hand.' One member of the panel raised his hand, and his name was stricken by the Clerk.

'(2) Do any of the jurors have preconceived objections to a suit by a sister against her brother which would prevent you from fairly and impartially deciding such a case?' There was no response.

'(3) If, in your opinion, the evidence in the case warrants a verdict for the plaintiff, the sister, are there any members of the jury who could not fairly and impartially assess damages in the case in view of the fact that the parties are related as sister and brother? If any members feel that they cannot fairly and impartially assess the damages raise their hand?' No one raised his hand. Thereupon the respective counsel struck a jury which was duly impanelled and the trial ensued, resulting in a verdict of $33,000 in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the appellee received a serious and permanent spinal injury. The sole contention is that the questions propounded were an abuse of the trial court's discretion and were prejudicial.

It is well settled that it is proper for the court to propound submitted questions to jurymen. Emery, to Use of Calvert Ins. Co. v. F. P. Asher, Jr., & Sons, Inc., 196 Md. 1, 7, 75 A.2d 333. It is also settled that the scope of the questions posed is largely in the discretion of the trial court. Corens v. State, 185 Md. 561, 564, 45 A.2d 340. The purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain the existence of cause for disqualification and for no other purpose. Adams v. State, Md. 88 A.2d 556, 559, and cases cited. While there is authority to the effect that where the prejudice is simply against a particular business, and not against the defendant, the juror is not thereby disqualified, it has been intimated that the case is otherwise if the prejudice against the class of persons, of whom the defendant is one, would affect the jurors' ability or disposition to fairly consider the evidence and reach a just conclusion. Lockhart v. State, 145 Md. 602, 615, 125 A. 829 (stockbrokers). In the instant case we think the juror who admitted that he had such a preconceived objection to suits by a guest, that he...