Paulsen v. Butcher
Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 25839,25839 |
Parties | Harry A. PAULSEN, Respondent, v. Robert W. BUTCHER, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Graeff, Raytown, for appellant.
Clyde G. Meise, Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff received a jury verdict of $6,000 on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant's towed vehicle became disengaged, left the roadway and struck plaintiff's vehicle parked in plaintiff's driveway. Plaintiff was seated in his vehicle.
Defendant appeals contending plaintiff's direct testimony improperly injected insurance, and the 'highest degree of care' instruction was improper since there was no evidence that the 'negligence' which caused the towed vehicle to be released occurred on a public road.
The insurance issue is posed by the response of plaintiff to the following question:
'Q And how long did Dr. Butcher (defendant) remain there (at the scene of the accident) with you?
'A Well, he was very nice, he stayed, offered his help, and he called his insurance company and told them what had happened.'
The question and answer align closely with the facts in Beckett v. Kiepe, 369 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.App.1963) where plaintiff, when asked to relate certain facts about the collision, nonresponsively added a statement by defendant about insurance coverage. Following our prior holding in Vesper v. Ashton, 233 Mo.App. 204, 118 S.W.2d 84 (1938), this court said in Beckett, l.c. 263, 369 S.W.2d:
There is no evidence the plaintiff of counsel acted in bad faith; and under the established rule that a trial court is vested with a sound discretion in ruling on a motion for mistrial, the overruling of the motion for a mistrial is affirmed. Gray v. Williams, 289 S.W.2d 463 (Mo.App.1956).
Appellant cites Olian v. Olian, 332 Mo. 689, 59 S.W.2d 673 (1933), Whitman v. Carver, 337 Mo. 1247, 88 S.W.2d 885 (1935), and Crapson v. United Chatauqua Co., 27 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1930). Olian, supra, involves deliberate and persistent attempts to inject insurance. Crapson, supra, was a situation where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Means v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...the answer to a question is voluntary and unresponsive, there is no automatic error in refusing to discharge the jury. Paulsen v. Butcher, supra, 492 S.W.2d at 187. Here the trial court sustained the objection, requested the jury to disregard it, admonished the witness and no further refere......
-
St. Louis County v. Seibert, 44556
...a witness to a question asked in good faith is seldom, if ever, grounds for a mistrial-even when the witness is a party, Paulsen v. Butcher, 492 S.W.2d 186 (Mo.App.1973). Here the question was posed by the County's attorney, and the witness was not a party. There was no abuse of discretion ......