Young v. Carter
| Citation | 173 S.E.2d 259,121 Ga.App. 191 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 44885,44885,3 |
| Parties | Matt F. YOUNG v. Shelby Jean CARTER |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, Savannah, for appellant.
Austin, Pahno & Herndon, Donald E. Austin, Savannah, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant appeals from an order overruling his motion for new trial in a personal injury suit. The trial court directed a verdict on the issue of liability and the jury returned a verdict of $10,000. He contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial based upon the following statement made by the plaintiff's attorney in his opening remarks to the jury: '* * * we will show that the defendant at that time made a statement to the lady, and insisted that she go to the doctor, that he stated that to her, that it was his fault-that his insurance company would take care of it for her * * *.'
'Admissions against interest are such even though they may contain a suggestion that the party making them carries insurance, and the mere fact, that insurance, or an insurance company, is mentioned as an inextricable part of the statement made by such party or conversation in which he indulged, does not make the evidence inadmissible when offered by the opposite party.' Wade v. Drinkard, 76 Ga.App. 159(5a), 45 S.E.2d 231; Hix v. Headrick, 97 Ga.App. 540, 103 S.E.2d 516. If the statement is admissible in evidence as an integral part of an admission, it necessarily follows that an attorney has the right to say in his opening statement that he expects to prove this admission.
Judgment affirmed.
In my opinion, the trial judge had no alternative under Georgia court decisions but to rule as he did in this case. However, I think the time has come to end this continuing charade over whether or not a defendant has liability insurance. It holds the law up to ridicule by laymen and thereby contributes to an unfortunate disrespect for law, order, courts and justice.
This case is a perfect example of the application of Georgia's irrational rules. We begin with a sanctimonious principle of law that it is reversible error to admit evidence of liability insurance, O'Neill Mfg. Co. v. Pruitt, 110 Ga. 577, 36 S.E. 59, the theory being that the fact of insurance 'tends to influence and prejudice jurors by imparting to them the information that whatever verdict they may render will be immaterial to the defendant, since he will not have to pay it.' 29 Am.Jur.2d 458, § 404, 'Evidence.' As to the predictability of our courts on whether this requires the grant of a mistrial, see Thomas Milling Co. v. Branch, 118 Ga.App. 857, 165 S.E.2d 907 and Wallace v. Cates, 120 Ga.App. 228, 170 S.E.2d 40. The effect of the rule prohibiting reference to liability insurance is then nullified by having the trial judge qualify the jury as to the defendant's liability insurer. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544, 174 S.E. 131; Reynolds v. Satterfield, 86 Ga.App. 816, 72 S.E.2d 811. The objection here relates to insurer's, stockholders and employees and their relatives and is based upon the theory that this is necessary to obtain an unbiased jury. If it does not appear whether or not the insurer is a 'mutual' or 'stock' company, the attorney for the plaintiff can then qualify the jury as to whether any of them are policy holders of the named insurer. Parker v. Bryan, 96 Ga.App. 283, 99 S.E.2d 810; Williams v. Lane, 103 Ga.App. 150, 118 S.E.2d 730; Weatherbee v. Hutcheson, 114 Ga.App. 761, 152 S.E.2d 715. Any juror who doesn't know that there is liability insurance in the case by this time should probably be excused by virtue of the fact he or she is an idiot.
In the present case the court inquired whether or not insurance was involved. Defense counsel admitted out of hearing of the jury that Travelers Insurance Company had a financial interest in the case. On voir dire, the court asked the jurors if any of them were officers, agents, employees or stockholders in Travelers Insurance Company. The plaintiff's counsel then asked the panel if any of them were insured with Travelers Insurance Company. Then in his opening argument, plaintiff's counsel said: '* * * we will show that the defendant at that time made a statement to the lady, and insisted that she go to the doctor, that he stated that to her, that it was his fault-that his insurance company would take care of it for her * * *.' Defendant immediately made a motion for a mistrial. In the colloquy which followed, insurance was mentioned several more times in the jury's hearing. The court denied the motion, warned the parties to watch their words and instructed the jury to disregard any mention of insurance-that it had absolutely nothing to do with the case. The trial them proceeded, but while giving testimony the plaintiff did blurt out the forbidden word once more. The defendant later admitted fault...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Crump
...in Georgia since 1974. Ga. L.1974, p. 113. Therefore, to apply the quote from the late Judge Hall's concurrence in Young v. Carter, 121 Ga.App. 191, 193, 173 S.E.2d 259 (1970), "Any juror who doesn't know that there is liability insurance in the case [of a motor vehicle collision] by this t......
-
Butts v. Davis, 47045
...Ga.App. 203(2), 128 S.E. 915; Decatur Chevrolet Co. v. White, 51 Ga.App. 362, 180 S.E. 377. In his concurring opinion in Young v. Carter, 121 Ga.App. 191, 173 S.E.2d 259 our Judge Hall referred to the irrationality of this rule which results in a 'judicially created charade' but concluded t......
-
Gonzalez v. Wells, A94A0593
...(1993). I agree with the statement made by Presiding Judge, thereafter Justice, Hall in his concurring opinion in Young v. Carter, 121 Ga.App. 191, 193, 173 S.E.2d 259 (1970), that "[t]he effect of the rule prohibiting reference to liability insurance is ... nullified by having the trial ju......
-
McDuffie County v. Rogers, 46203
...126 S.E. 872; Rentz v. Collins, 51 Ga.App. 782(2), 181 S.E. 678; Wade v. Drinkard, 76 Ga.App. 159(5), 45 S.E.2d 231; Young v. Carter, 121 Ga.App. 191, 192, 173 S.E.2d 259; Harper v. Plunkett, 122 Ga.App. 63, 65, 176 S.E.2d I concur in the remainder of the judgment reversing this case, reluc......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...230 Ga. App. at 414-15, 497 S.E.2d at 247 (Pope, P.J., concurring specially). 126. Id. at 415, 497 S.E.2d at 247. 127. Young v. Carter, 121 Ga. App. 191, 193, 173 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1970) (Hall, J., concurring). 128. 228 Ga. App. 354, 492 S.E.2d 7 (1997). 129. Id. at 355, 492 S.E.2d at 8. The......