Middleton v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 23 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 20203,20203
• Citation: 601 S.W.2d 759
• Parties: Linda MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. Ivan Maurice PALMER, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 759

601 S.W.2d 759

Linda MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. Ivan Maurice PALMER, Appellee.

No. 20203.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

May 23, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1980.

Bertran T. Bader, III, Bader & Cox, Dallas, for appellant.

Sidney H. Davis, Jr., Touchstone, Bernays, Johnston, Beall & Smith, Dallas, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, CARVER and HUMPHREYS, JJ.

CARVER, Justice.

Linda Middleton appeals from a judgment denying her relief against Ivan Maurice Palmer in a negligence case arising out of an automobile collision at a rural intersection. We find that (1) under the circumstances shown in the record, cross-examination of Middleton as to other accidents, injuries suffered, and claims filed was not improper as showing her "claim mindedness"; (2) side-bar exchanges between counsel were either harmless or invited; (3) Palmer's question to Middleton as to her refusing to give a medical authorization was not improper under the record; (4) jury's answer to special issues declining to find both negligence and damages against Palmer had adequate support in the evidence; and (5) trial court's prior ruling on the plea of privilege, that "some" evidence of negligence which was the proximate cause of "some" injury to Middleton was established for venue purposes, does not bind the trial court when considering a motion for new trial after a jury has reached a different conclusion on same issues. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The collision occurred in Kaufman County on February 26, 1976, at the intersection of highways US 175 and FM 148. Middleton

was proceeding westerly on US 175 and Palmer was proceeding northerly on FM 148. Traffic on FM 148 was required to stop at a stop sign before entering or crossing US 175. The weather was clear and dry and each driver could see the other for 200 to 250 yards. It is undisputed that Palmer came to a stop on FM 148 in obedience to the sign. The movements of the parties thereafter appear to be the inquiry to which the trial was principally devoted, although Middleton's damages were also the subject of considerable testimony. The jury refused to find that Palmer failed to keep a "look out," failed to apply his brakes, or failed to yield the use of the road, but the jury did find that Middleton failed to keep a "look out," failed to apply her brakes, and drove at an excessive speed. The jury answered "None" to a damage issue inquiring as to Middleton's pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and medical expense. Following entry of a take-nothing judgment, Middleton's motion for a new trial was denied and she appeals.

CLAIM-MINDEDNESS

Middleton's points I and II relate to an incident that occurred during her cross-examination. That incident is as follows:

Q. Now, as a result of that accident you were claiming that you hurt your neck and back, aren't you?

A. Yes, Sir.

Q. And you have filed a lawsuit as a result of those injuries, and that lawsuit you're claiming you hurt your neck and your back, didn't you?

MR. BADER: Your Honor, again we object to counsel sticking into the record the fact that these people have filed a lawsuit against their own insurance company as a result of an accident of uninsured motorist. It's highly improper, prejudicial, and it's an attempt to try to show the jury that these folks somehow are claim-minded, object to it. Ask the jury be instructed to disregard it as highly improper and ask that counsel be instructed not to bring these matters up, and we would renew our previous motion made.

MR. SMITH: Your Honor, we object to the side-bar comments of counsel. This matter was taken up with the Court before this trial began and the Court ruled that this was proper, and for counsel at this time to try to infer there's anything improper about this is highly insinuating and improper and we object to his side-bar comments and ask that he be instructed not to pursue them further and ask that the jury

MR. BADER: Your Honor, counsel has now in front of the jury violated another

THE COURT: Overrule the objection and we will proceed.

MR. BADER: Your Honor, may I have in the record that counsel has now violated another order of the Court in front of the jury, and can we have the jury retired so that I can make a motion?

THE COURT: All right, sir. Mr. Tackett, take the jury to the jury room.

Middleton argues that Palmer's question alone improperly called her "claim mindedness" to the jury's attention. We conclude that Middleton's attorney's own extended remarks emphasizing "claim mindedness" in the guise of an objection contributed equally to the injury, if any, and she should not be heard to complain of error of her own making.

If we exclude the extended remarks of Middleton from consideration and examine only Palmer's question, we conclude that no reversible error is shown. In Bonham v. Baldeschwiler, 533 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the rule with regard to evidence concerning "claim mindedness" is stated:

Generally it is error to admit evidence of prior claims to show that the plaintiff is claims minded. (Citation omitted.) When the evidence, however, is offered to show statements which are inconsistent with the party's present position, it is receivable as an admission against interest. (Citation omitted.) It has also been 533 S.W.2d at 148. Middleton was involved in two accidents, less than three months apart. She filed two lawsuits, each asserting that she suffered neck and back injuries as a result of each accident. We find sufficient inconsistency between Middleton's allegations in the separate suits to justify the questions asked by Palmer as admissions against interest or inquiries about similar injuries from other accidents. Appellant's points I and II are overruled.

recognized that it is proper to allow a party to be fully cross-examined as to previous injuries, claims and actions to show that his present physical condition is not the result of the injury presently sued for, but was caused in whole or in part by an earlier or subsequent injury or a pre-existing condition. (Citations omitted.)

SIDE-BAR REMARKS

Middleton's points III and IV complain that Palmer improperly accused her of side-bar remarks and improperly claimed the benefit of a prior court ruling to justify Palmer's improper question. Middleton urges that these remarks were so injurious as to warrant reversal. "Side-bar" remarks describe remarks of counsel that are neither questions to a witness nor an appropriate address to the court. The practice is condemned for the risk of error which both counsel should avoid, but not every side-bar remark is automatic error requiring reversal. Unless the subject matter of the remark is deemed to deny a fair trial, the remark will be treated as harmless error. We perceive that each counsel improperly demeaned the other in this exchange and that each improperly sought to cloak his action with a prior or current court ruling to impress the jury. We conclude, however, that the trial court's rulings, correctly allowing the question originally asked the witness and denying both counsel's objections as to each others remarks, sufficiently suppressed any possible prejudice to a "fair trial." Appellant's points III and IV are overruled.

MEDICAL AUTHORIZATIONS

Middleton complains in points V and VI that Palmer was permitted to ask her about her action in declining to give a medical authorization and that her counsel was not permitted to tell the jury of a condition he had imposed as a condition precedent to such authorization. The exchange is as follows:

Q. Do you remember when you gave your deposition, Mrs. Middleton, back on November 20, 1978?

A. I remember.

Q. You were present with your lawyer, Mr. Bader?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were asked if you would sign a medical authorization which would permit all the parties to review and examine your medical and hospitalization records so we would all know what the doctors and hospitals said about you and you refused to do that, didn't you?

MR. BADER: Excuse me, Your Honor, object to that, especially unless counsel reads into the records upon what basis we said we would do it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BADER: Your Honor, the Defendant has got absolutely no right to that information. He's got no right to get a medical authorization and attempt to interrogate doctors outside the presence of counsel and Mr. Smith knows that. It's privileged records and they're fully available to him by subpoena if he wants them. He could have made a motion to discover them. We gave him everything we had and now he wants to infer that we're somehow hiding something from him, Judge.

MR. SMITH: Your Honor, object to the side-bar comments.

THE COURT: Overrule the objection. You may proceed.

MR. BADER: Note our exception, Your Honor.

Q. And you refused to sign the medical authorization, didn't you, Mrs. Middleton?

A. On the advice of my attorney.

Q. That's right. That's all we have, thank you.

Middleton relies upon Travelers Ins. Co. v. Woodard, 461 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.), where a question similar to that put to her was prohibited by the trial court and such prohibition was held not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. However, in Martinez v. Rutledge, 592 S.W.2d 398 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1979, writ filed ), this court held that a trial court did not err in ordering a party to give an authorization to secure his Naval Hospital records from a distant state and from an entity against whom the subpoena power was ineffective. In Martinez this court answered several contentions similar to Middleton's arguments here. To a contention that medical records are privileged, Martinez holds that any privilege or privacy of medical records is waived when the subject of the records (bodily injuries and conditions) has been placed in issue. To a contention that the records were not actually in the possession of the party...