Wilson v. Thurston Co.

• Citation: 267 P. 801,82 Mont. 492
• Decision Date: 31 May 1928
• Docket Number: 6311.
• Parties: WILSON v. THURSTON CO. et al.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

267 P. 801

82 Mont. 492

WILSON v. THURSTON CO. et al.

No. 6311.

Supreme Court of Montana

May 31, 1928

Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Wm. E. Carroll Judge.

Action by Fenwick Wilson against the Thurston Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

R. F Gaines, of Butte, for appellants.

Joseph J. McCaffery, of Butte, for respondent.

GALEN J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the defendants for personal injuries by the plaintiff, sustained May 5, 1926, while crossing Montana street in the city of Butte, by reason of being struck by an automobile alleged to have been negligently operated by the defendant W. M Thurston, an employee of the defendant company. Upon issue joined, the cause was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor for $4,500. Complaining of alleged errors committed during the course of the trial, defendants have appealed. The defendants' assignments of error relate to questions permitted to be asked of prospective jurors upon voir dire examination, over the defendants' objection, and instructions as to the law governing the case given to the jury.

1. Over objection seasonably interposed, eight prospective jurors were interrogated by plaintiff's counsel as to whether they had any immediate relatives employed by any liability insurance company in the city of Butte, and responded in the negative. Were such questions so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial? In our opinion they were. Whether a juror had any immediate relatives employed by any liability insurance company in the city of Butte was of no possible relevancy in determination of the juror's qualifications to fairly try and determine the issue presented-whether the defendants, not some one else, should be held to respond in damages because of their alleged negligence. No liability insurance company was a party to the action, and the nature of the employment of relatives of a prospective juror was far beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry. The actual inference implied by such questions is that the defendants were protected by liability insurance, and it is manifest that the sole purpose of such interrogation was to prejudice the jury against the defendants in the action, whether they were insured in fact or not. Whether the defendants were protected by liability insurance...