Steiner v. Custer
| Decision Date | 24 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27970. |
| Citation | 31 N.E.2d 855,137 Ohio St. 448 |
| Parties | STEINER v. CUSTER et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The granting of a motion for a new trial is not such a final order as may be reviewed on appeal, unless it clearly appears that the court granting such motion abused its discretion in so doing.
2. The meaning of the term 'abuse of discretion' in relation to the granting of a motion for a new trial connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Knox County.
This case originated in the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County and was tried on the petition of the plaintiff, the answers and cross-petition of the defendants, and replies thereto. It was a tort action in which damages were sought for injuries occurring when two automobiles collided.
Upon voir dire examination each prospective juror was asked whether he or any of his relatives by blood or marriage had been involved in any kind of accident, and whether any claim for damages had been made by reason of any such accident. The question was met by a negative response or silence.
Trial was had and a verdict returned in favor of the defendant on the petition and in favor of the plaintiff on the cross-petition, ten jurors signing.
Subsequent to the verdict, an investigation was conducted by assiduous counsel for the plaintiff and it was discovered that three of the jurors or their relatives had had automobile accidents and that another had seen one of the automobiles concerned in the present controversy soon after the collision, but did not connect it with the case until photographs of the vehicle were introduced in evidence.
The depositions of these four jurors were taken and presented to the court in support of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
The automobile accident in the experience of one of the jurors consisted of slipping on an icy road, and the daughter of another lost control of her car on one occasion. As regards the third juror, the situation was more serious. His wife received a fractured pelvis in an accident involving his automobile, in which she was riding, and another motor car. Settlement was made for this injury, without litigation.
These jurors deposed that they did not comprehend the full implication of the question. Two of them thought it had reference to claims for damage concerning accidents where there were colliding automobiles, and the third--the one whose wife was hurt--said he understood the question to contemplate the bringing of a lawsuit in connection with an accident. All stated they were in no way influenced in the rendition of the verdict by the occurrences referred to.
Finally the judge who had the motion for a new trial under advisement granted it. His action was based largely on the decision of the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county in the case of Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Myers, 50 Ohio App. 224, 197 N.E. 803, and on the decision of the Court of Appeals of Summit County in the case of Kerr v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 1936, 31 N.E.2d 709, wherein the holdings were that the losing party should have been granted a new trial because a juror or jurors upon voir dire examination had failed to make disclosure of material facts concerning which specific inquiry had been made.
An appeal from the ruling granting a new trial was taken by the defendants herein to the Court of Appeals, on the theory that such order constituted a gross abuse of discretion and was therefore a final order reviewable on appeal. The appellate court agreed, holding the lower court to have 'committed a gross abuse of discretion in granting a new trial.' There was a remand of the cause to the court of first instance, with instructions to enter judgment upon the verdict for the defendant.
The case is here on an order of certification following allowance of the plaintiff's motion therefor.
Harrison & Marshman, of Cleveland, for appellant.
L. Tate Cromley, of Mount Vernon, for appellees.
There was apparently no studied or deliberate design on the part of the jurors complained of to respond falsely to the question asked, and their accident experience was not a factor entering into their deliberations and verdict. In the mishaps described by two of the jurors, no other motorists were implicated. As to the third juror, whose wife was injured, any predilections he might have had would have been favorable to the plaintiff, and he so stated in his deposition.
We are in agreement with many of the things said by the Court of Appeals in its opinion. The orderly and prompt administration of justice is not served when motions for new trials are granted upon inconsequential or insubstantial bases. And while parties are entitled to fair trials, attempts to impeach verdicts in the manner pursued here should be examined with care and treated with discernment.
However, the granting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maurer
...more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude * * *." Steiner v. Custer (1940), 137 Ohio St. 448, 31 N.E.2d 855 , paragraph two of the syllabus; Conner v. Conner (1959), 170 Ohio St. 85, 162 N.E.2d 852 ; Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23......
-
State v. William J. Bradley
...Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Stow (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 347, 349; see also State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151; Steiner v. Custer (1940), 137 Ohio St. 448. where there was evidence that appellant had a history of violent behavior and that the sheriff recommended that such shackles were n......
-
State v. Richard E. Joseph
... ... it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable ... attitude on the part of the court. Steiner v ... Custer (1940), 137 Ohio St. 448, 451. Examining ... jurors on voir dire affords the best test to ... determine whether ... ...
-
State v. Bethel
...or unconscionable." State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 16 O.O.3d 169, 404 N.E.2d 144, citing Steiner v. Custer (1940), 137 Ohio St. 448, 19 O.O. 148, 31 N.E.2d 855. The trial court's refusal to send the tape to the jury was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or {¶ 96} Bethel also clai......