Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 1031824.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | Lyons |
| Citation | 925 So.2d 160 |
| Parties | Shelia HOLLY and Leroy Holly v. HUNTSVILLE HOSPITAL and Dr. John Edward Markushewski. |
| Docket Number | 1031824. |
| Decision Date | 16 September 2005 |
Page 160
v.
HUNTSVILLE HOSPITAL and Dr. John Edward Markushewski.
Page 161
Shay Samples and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham; and Gary V. Conchin and Maureen K. Cooper of Morris, Conchin, Banks & Cooper, Huntsville, for appellants.
W. Stanley Rodgers, Daniel F. Beasley, and Jeffrey T. Kelly of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, for appellees.
LYONS, Justice.
The plaintiffs below, Shelia Holly and Leroy Holly, appeal from the trial court's order granting a motion for a new trial filed by the defendants below, Huntsville Hospital and Dr. John Edward Markushewski. We affirm.
On October 6, 1997, Shelia Holly took the Hollys' 11-month-old child, Cameron, to the emergency room at Huntsville Hospital; the child had a fever and a high pulse rate and he was having trouble breathing. Dr. Markushewski observed Cameron for three hours, wrote a prescription for him, and discharged him. Shortly after he was discharged, Cameron went into respiratory arrest and then cardiac arrest. He was transported back to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
The Hollys sued Dr. Markushewski and the hospital in the Madison Circuit Court. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the Hollys appealed. This Court reversed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict because the trial court had improperly excluded the testimony of the Hollys' expert witness regarding the applicable standard of care. Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 865 So.2d 1177 (Ala. 2003). After another trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hollys. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted, and the Hollys appealed.
Page 162
On appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for a new trial based on their argument that one of the jurors failed to answer a question on voir dire. The question dealt with whether any of the prospective jurors had had any disputes with Huntsville Hospital and was posed as follows:
"Anybody else that has had any difficulty where you were not satisfied with the service there at Huntsville Hospital? I think I'll just ask a broad question, how about any of you that have had family members that were treated at Huntsville Hospital as in-patients or as out-patients in the emergency department, any of you that have had anything other than a completely satisfactory experience or you know of some family member who has not had that completely satisfactory experience? Now we're excluding the food, okay. How about it? Anybody? Have any of you ever had a dispute with Huntsville Hospital about anything, a bill, a statement or anything about it? You had any dispute with them about anything?"
(Emphasis added.) One of the jurors who did not respond to defense counsel's inquiry had been involved in what the defendants now describe as numerous "collection disputes" with Huntsville Hospital. At the hearing on the defendants' motion for a new trial, the director of patient accounting for Huntsville Hospital testified that, at the time of the trial, the juror had at least 10 delinquent accounts with Huntsville Hospital, totaling $1,268.51, and that the hospital, through various collection agencies, had sent a total of 39 letters and placed 13 telephone calls to the juror regarding his debts to Huntsville Hospital. On May 4, 2004, Huntsville Hospital sued the juror in the Madison District Court, seeking payment on seven of the juror's past-due accounts, although the juror did not receive notice of the filing of that action until at least May 12, the day the jury returned its verdict in favor of the Hollys in their medical-malpractice case against Huntsville Hospital and Dr. Markushewski.
"While we agree . . . that a juror's silence during voir dire could be a basis for granting a new trial, we must stress that the initial decision on this issue is within the trial court's sound discretion. Hayes v. Boykin, 271 Ala. 588, 126 So.2d 91 (1960). Further, the trial court's decision on this matter will not be disturbed on appeal unless the appellant establishes that the decision was arbitrarily entered into or was clearly erroneous."
Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350, 1354 (Ala.1992).
"The proper inquiry on a motion for a new trial based on improper or nonexistent responses to voir dire questions is whether the response, or the lack of response, resulted in probable prejudice to the movant. Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330 (1970). Not every failure of a prospective juror to respond correctly to a voir dire question will entitle the losing party to a new trial. Wallace v. Campbell, 475 So.2d 521 (Ala.1985).
"The determination of whether the complaining party was prejudiced by a juror's failure to answer voir dire questions is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the court has abused its discretion. Freeman, supra."
Union Mortgage Co. v. Barlow, 595 So.2d 1335, 1342 (Ala.1992). Questions of law and the application of the law to the facts presented are to be reviewed de novo.
Page 163
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996).
Initially, the Hollys argue that Huntsville Hospital waived its right to move for a new trial based on the juror's failure to answer the voir dire question regarding whether any prospective jurors had any disputes with Huntsville Hospital. They argue that agents of Huntsville Hospital had notice of the dispute between the hospital and the juror, and, therefore, through principles of agency law, Huntsville Hospital itself had notice of the dispute. They further contend that "[w]here a party has knowledge of facts which could justify the discharge of a juror, but fails to inform the court in a timely fashion, the party waives the issues." 50A C.J.S. Juries § 507 at 556 (1997).
The defendants, on the other hand, point out that regardless of whether knowledge of the dispute between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boudreaux v. Pettaway, 1100281.
...at 771–73 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).”Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257, 1260–61 (Ala.2010). See also Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 165 (Ala.2005). Although a large number of jurors did not disclose their complete litigation history and at least two jurors had litigation mat......
-
Hood v. McElroy, 1091075.
...the facts presented are to be reviewed de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996).”Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 162–63 (Ala.2005).III. Analysis As the estate began its voir dire examination of the jury, the following colloquy occurred between counsel f......
-
Hood v. McElroy, 1091075
...the facts presented are to be reviewed de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)."Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So. 2d 160, 162-63 (Ala. 2005).III. Analysis As the estate began its voir dire examination of the jury, the following colloquy occurred between couns......
-
Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 1051115.
...has abused its discretion. Freeman, supra.' "Union Mortgage Co. v. Barlow, 595 So.2d 1335, 1342 (Ala.1992)." Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 162 (Ala.2005). Our review is limited, because "[t]he trial court is in the best position to determine whether there was 964 So.2d 5 probabl......
-
Boudreaux v. Pettaway, 1100281.
...at 771–73 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).”Ex parte Dixon, 55 So.3d 1257, 1260–61 (Ala.2010). See also Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 165 (Ala.2005). Although a large number of jurors did not disclose their complete litigation history and at least two jurors had litigation mat......
-
Hood v. McElroy, 1091075.
...the facts presented are to be reviewed de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996).”Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 162–63 (Ala.2005).III. Analysis As the estate began its voir dire examination of the jury, the following colloquy occurred between counsel f......
-
Hood v. McElroy, 1091075
...the facts presented are to be reviewed de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)."Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So. 2d 160, 162-63 (Ala. 2005).III. Analysis As the estate began its voir dire examination of the jury, the following colloquy occurred between couns......
-
Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 1051115.
...has abused its discretion. Freeman, supra.' "Union Mortgage Co. v. Barlow, 595 So.2d 1335, 1342 (Ala.1992)." Holly v. Huntsville Hosp., 925 So.2d 160, 162 (Ala.2005). Our review is limited, because "[t]he trial court is in the best position to determine whether there was 964 So.2d 5 probabl......