# Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Stuart

> Supreme Court of Alabama · March 6, 1981 · 395 So. 2d 980

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7508685

## Case

- **Full name:** Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v. James A. Stuart and Jessie P. Stuart. Charles Beach and James Beach v. James A. Stuart, Jessie P. Stuart and Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co., an Iowa Corp.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 6, 1981
- **Citations:** 395 So. 2d 980; 1981 Ala. LEXIS 3294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Beatty, Torbert, Almon, Shores, Embry, Adams, Jones, Maddox, Faulkner
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7508685

## Opinion text

JONES, Justice
(concurring specially):
Initially, I was inclined to affirm the trial court’s rulings and its judgment entered thereon. My further consideration, however, convinces me that the holding of the majority opinion is correct. While I am still of the opinion that the trial judge acted commendably in his handling of this matter once the jurors’ confusion was called to his attention, I nevertheless agree with the majority that reinstructing the jury and allowing them to return a “corrected” verdict was improper under the circumstances. After all, out of the court’s presence and after counsel for one of the parties had left the *989 courtroom, Plaintiff’s counsel had a conversation with one or more of the jurors concerning the form and substance of the verdict they had just returned. To allow the second verdict to stand, at the very least, gives the appearance of impropriety.
This in no way is intended to impugn the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel. Indeed, I have no difficulty in the instant case in accepting, fully and completely, counsel’s version of what occurred between himself and the jurors. This encounter cleared up a misunderstanding and presented a result not intended by the jury that heard the case. That is served as a basis for a new trial can hardly be debated; but to reconvene this same jury, reinstruct them, and accept their “corrected” verdict as the basis for the court’s judgment is to risk bad precedent. Thus, I concur in the result to reverse and remand for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7508685. Public record. Not legal advice.