Piechuck v. Magusiak
| Citation | 135 A. 534 |
| Parties | PIECHUCK v. MAGUSIAK. |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1926 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Sawyer, Judge.
Case by Helena Piechuck against Walter Magusiak. Verdict for defendant, and case transferred on plaintiff's exception. Exception sustained.
Case, to recover damage for personal injuries, alleged to have been cause by the defendant's negligent operation of an automobile. Trial by jury, and verdict for the defendant. Subject to exception, the defendant was permitted to testify that he had no liability insurance.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, for plaintiff.
F. Clyde Keefe, of Dover, for defendant.
The authorities are practically unanimous in holding that a plaintiff will not be permitted to show, as an independent fact, that the defendant is insured against the liability the plaintiff seeks to establish. Demars v. Glen Mfg. Co., 67 N. H. 404, 40 A. 902; Sawyer v. Arnold Shoe Co., 90 Me. 369, 38 A. 333; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507, 65 N. E. 494; Manley v. Minneapolis Paint Co., 76 Minn. 169, 78 N. W. 1050; Kerr v. National Fulton Brass Mfg. Co., 155 Mich. 191, 118 N. W. 925.
Indemnity insurance is now very generally carried, and the fact is matter of common knowledge. By the improper use of such knowledge, a jury might infer, in the absence of evidence upon the question, that the defendant was insured. Having drawn this improper inference they might continue their erroneous course by concluding from such a premise that a verdict ought to be returned for the plaintiff. This latter conclusion might be arrived at by a conscious process of reasoning, or by the unappreciated influence of the prejudice which may exist against such a corporation.
It may be urged that the evidence which was received subject to exception merely tended to prevent such improper course of procedure, and that since this was its only effect its admission could work no legal harm to the plaintiff. One difficulty with this argument is that it does not appear that the jury may not have made other use of the fact. They may have thought that it would be too bad to make an uninsured man pay. The evidence is a form of the inadmissible plea of poverty. Having been objected to and having been ruled in, the jury were given to understand that they were to use it for some purpose. "The fact that the incompetent testimony is laid before the jury under favorable rulings by the court * * * tends to Increase rather than diminish its prejudicial effect." Cooper v. Hopkins, 70 N. H. 271, 278, 48 A. 100, 104.
The evidence was potent to "excite prejudices, or raise false impressions." Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167, 180; Winkley v. Foye, 28 N. H. 513, 519. See, also. Winship v. Enfield, 42 N. H. 197, 212. The admission of evidence which is wholly immaterial is ground for setting aside a verdict when it appears that the jury may well have thought that they were authorized to make an Improper use of it. Bushman v. Stearns, 76 N. H. 568, 86 A. 140.
The rule that the admission of incompetent evidence is not cause for setting aside a verdict when "the only effect the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Wriston
...to be the general rule throughout the country where the question has been discussed by appellate courts. In the case of Piechuck v. Magusiak, 82 N.H. 429, 135 A. 534, 535, the defendant was permitted to testify that he had no liability insurance. In holding that this constituted reversible ......
-
Goldstein v. Gontarz
...might influence jurors toward giving defendants compassionate but strictly unmerited relief from personal liability. Piechuck v. Magusiak, 82 N.H. 429, 135 A. 534 (1926). King v. Starr, 43 Wash.2d 115, 119--121, 260 P.2d 351 (1953). Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin, 313 Mich. 528, 538--540, ......
-
Bodin v. City of Stanwood
...notwithstanding the availability of grant funds. See King v. Starr, 43 Wash.2d 115, 122, 260 P.2d 351 (1953) (quoting Piechuck v. Magusiak, 82 N.H. 429, 135 A. 534 (1926)) (evidence of lack of insurance is a form of the "inadmissible plea of poverty"). As the majority points out, the standa......
-
Brigham v. Hudson Motors, Inc.
...Sisk v. Ball, 91 Ariz. 239, 246, 371 P.2d 594, 598 (1962); See Angelowitz v. Nolet, 103 N.H. 347, 172 A.2d 103 (1961); Piechuck v. Magusiak, 82 N.H. 429, 135 A. 534 (1926). Counsel's statement could also have had the effect of implying that Mrs. Brigham agreed with the defendant's assessmen......