“While, of course, we have ruled that a gratuitous reference to personal liability insurance in personal injury cases is ground for a mistrial, we have never said that the mention of insurance, per se, like dynamite with a live fuse, will blow up the case.”
How later courts described this case
- “While, of course, we have ruled that a gratuitous reference to personal liability insurance in personal injury cases is ground for a mistrial, we have never said that the mention of insurance, per se, like dynamite with a live fuse, will blow up the case.”
- trial court committed reversible error by precluding cross-examination of witness concerning his employment by the insurance company which would be responsible for payment of any verdict against defendant
- plurality opinion by Musmanno, J.
- error to refuse questioning of private investigator hired by insurance company concerning his employment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I believe this case involved an intentional attempt by plaintiff to bring to the attention of the jury the fact that defendant was insured. Not only was this improper, as well as grounds for the withdrawal of a juror, but it was unnecessary, since the interest and possible bias of the witness Rock clearly appeared because he admitted he was employed by the defendant’s attorney, and this fact was emphasized by the Judge in his charge to the jury. It is clear, therefore, that the question of Rock’s credibility and his adverse interest was adequately covered. Moreover, (a) no exception was taken by appellant to the Judge’s charge to the jury, and (b) there was no reversible error. * For these reasons I dissent, and would affirm the judgment of the lower Court, which sustained the jury’s verdict and was supported by strong evidence.
I further disagree with several statements in the majority Opinion, which statements contain (in my judgment) mistakes of