Vickers v. Howard

Decision Date07 March 1968
Docket Number6 Div. 428
Citation208 So.2d 72,281 Ala. 691
PartiesMrs. Opal C. VICKERS v. Glenn Edward HOWARD et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

W. W. Ross and Lanny S. Vines, Birmingham, for appellant.

London, Yancey, Clark & Allen, and Rives, Peterson, Pettus & Conway, Birmingham, for appellees.

MERRILL, Justice.

Appellant sued the defendants alleging that she was injured as a proximate result of their combined and concurring negligence. The jury found for the defendants. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled and this appeal followed.

Appellant's argued assignments of error make one contention which she states in brief may be 'succinctly stated as follows: The Foreman of the jury, Jerry W. Reynolds, was a licensed agent of Hardware Mutual Casualty Company which he concealed upon identification of the jury, thereby depriving Plaintiff's attorney of the opportunity of intelligently exercising his peremptory right of striking said juror from said jury panel.'

The record is silent as to the specific questions asked the jurors when they were qualified to try this case. The record shows:

'(WHEREUPON, the jury venire was sent for and entered the courtroom at 10:50 A.M.; were duly qualified by the Court; identified; and special questions were asked by counsel on behalf of the respective parties, following which the striking of the jury was begun and completed; * * *.)'

The only specific evidence came in support of the motion for a new trial in the form of two affidavits, two depositions and a letter from the Deputy Superintendent of Insurance.

The first affidavit is that of William W. Ross, the trial counsel for plaintiff. Mr. Ross states in his affidavit that at the time that the jury identified themselves, one prospective juror identified himself as Jerry W. Reynolds, Sentry Insurance representative. Mr. Ross knew of the existence of a life insurance company doing business in Alabama and using the name Sentry Insurance Company. The affiant then stated that Jerry W. Reynolds actually was primarily engaged in the business of fire and casualty insurance business for Hardware Mutual Casualty Company and Hardware Dealers Fire Insurance Company. The deponent also states that he is familiar with the names of a casualty insurance companies doing business in Alabama, and that if the said Jerry W. Reynolds had not concealed his true employment, he, Mr. Ross, would have struck Mr. Reynolds from the jury panel. Mr. Ross then states that Mr. Reynolds' true employment was learned by him only after the trial and verdict in this case.

Mr. Reynolds' deposition was to the effect that he represented Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, Hardware Dealers Fire Insurance Company and the Sentry Life Insurance Company and that all three of them 'are known as the Sentry Insurance Companies, by trade name.' Mr. Reynolds testified that he did not know, at the time of or during the trial, that Bibb Allen, who represented the defendant, Glenn Edward Howard, also was on retainer from Hardware Dealers Fire Insurance Company and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company. Mr. Reynolds testified that he had identified himself as a Sentry Insurance representative and had served as foreman of the jury.

The second deposition was that of Mr. Bibb Allen, who represented the defendant, Glenn Edward Howard. Mr. Allen testified that he was a partner in the law firm of London, Yancey, Clark and Allen. His firm has represented Hardware Mutual Casualty Company and Hardware Dealers Fire Insurance Company for about thirty years. However, Mr. Allen testified that he does not know any of their casualty or fire insurance salesmen in the state, that all of the casualty claims that he has handled for the last ten or fifteen years have come from the Atlanta office. Mr. Allen testified that Mr. Reynolds' statement concerning his employment 'made no impression on me whatsoever.'

The second...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Parish v. State, 8 Div. 258
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 23, 1985
    ...Jackson v. McFadden, 260 Ala. 109, 69 So.2d 286 (1953)). Counsel for Parish waived any claim of prejudicial error. Vickers v. Howard, 281 Ala. 691, 208 So.2d 72, 74 (1968); Pearson v. State, 343 So.2d 538 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). See also Leach v. State, 245 Ala. 539, 18 So.2d 289 (1944); Law v. ......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Bonner
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 14, 1984
    ...favorably disposed to your client's position." Hare, "Voir Dire and Jury Selection," 29 Ala. Lawyer 160 (1968). In Vickers v. Howard, 281 Ala. 691, 208 So.2d 72 (1968), the plaintiff in a personal injury case appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendants. She claimed error in "The For......
  • Hawes v. State, 8 Div. 135
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 15, 1972
    ...matters of which inquiry is made are not a disqualification. * * *' Dyer v. State, 241 Ala. 679, 4 So.2d 311; See also Vickers v. Howard, 281 Ala. 691, 208 So.2d 72. (See cases collected under Ala.Digest Volume 13, Jury k131(3, 4, 5, & We are of the opinion that under the authorities, supra......
  • Cooper v. Bishop Freeman Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1986
    ...an insurance company, it clearly limits the inquiry to the defendant's insurance company. "Even the last case cited, Vickers v. Howard, 281 Ala. 691, 208 So.2d 72 (1968), does not support the majority's position. That case obviously concerned an inquiry into the occupation of the prospectiv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT