•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 35 > Issue 2 (1936)

 

Abstract

During the trial for injuries received in an automobile collision the plaintiff's attorney asked each prospective juror as to whether or not he owned stock in a named insurance company, or held a policy with it, or was an agent for it, and other questions as to whether or not the interest of an insurance company in the action would affect his decisions in the case. The company was not in fact a party to the action. The defendant assigned as error that such questions caused the jury to believe that the defendant carried insurance against loss from damages such as the plaintiff sought to recover and that such a result was prejudicial to him. Held, reversed and remanded. Although it discussed other errors the court said that the nature and number of questions asked on the voir dire examination regarding insurance showed that the object of them was not to get information as a basis for challenges, but was to give improper information to the jury. It suggested the use of general questions and also that the word "insurance" be avoided. The court held that counsel on the voir dire examination should scrupulously avoid any act, statement, or question of such a nature as would reasonably inform the jury as to whether or not the defendant was indemnified, by one not a party to the action, against having to pay any verdict which might be rendered against him, and that a violation of this rule is prejudicial to the defendant unless the circumstances of the entire case affirmatively show the lack of prejudice and that the information was necessary in making challenges and could not reasonably have been otherwise obtained. Bergandahl v. Rabeler, (Neb. 1936) 268 N. W. 459.

Download

Share

COinS