Smith, et al. v. Crawford
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00257-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00257-COA ; 2004-CT-00257-SCT ; 2004-CT-00257-SCT ; 2004-CA-00257-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-20-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Reference to liability insurance Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J. Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-22-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Jury returned verdict in favor of Appellants but denied the Appellants' Motion for a new trial Case Number: 251-01-689CIV |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found no abuse of discretion by the circuit judge in instructing the jury to disregard a statement made by counsel in closing argument and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. See original COA opinion http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO28980.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DEWEY W. SMITH AND SYLVIA G. SMITH |
THOMAS HENRY FREELAND, III,
THOMAS A. COLEMAN |
||
| Appellee: | HATTIE CRAWFORD | TIMOTHY D. MOORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Reference to liability insurance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following an automobile accident, Dewey and Sylvia Smith filed an action against Hattie Crawford. Because Crawford admitted fault, there was no issue as to responsibility for the accident. The only issue at trial was the amount of damages owed. The jury awarded the Smiths $3,213 in damages. The Smiths appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Crawford’s attorney stated during his closing argument that “while Mrs. Crawford wanted the Smiths to be compensated for any damages that were caused by her admitted negligence, she did not want to pay for or be responsible for any damage which her negligence did not cause.” The Smiths’ attorney did not object but stated during closing argument that “I covenant with the jury that not a dime of any sum the jury might award the Smiths would come from the pocket of Mrs. Crawford.” Crawford objected to the statement and asked for a mistrial, which the circuit judge denied. Instead, the circuit judge instructed the jury to disregard the statement made by the Smiths’ counsel. The Court of Appeals held that because Crawford’s statement was an impermissible reference to liability insurance, the Smiths’ statement was a justified response, and thus the trial judge erred when he told the jury to disregard Smith’s statement. Although references to liability insurance are generally impermissible and constitute reversible error, an exception exists where a defendant makes an impermissible statement intimating that he does not have insurance. In that case, the plaintiff is justified to inform the jury just the opposite. The statement made by Crawford’s attorney did not intimate that Crawford lacked insurance, but instead simply suggested that Crawford, like any defendant, did not want to be held responsible for damages which she did not cause. In addition, the Court of Appeals’ holding has an unintended effect of preventing a defendant from arguing that she should not be held responsible for pre-existing damage or damage she did not cause. Since Crawford’s attorney did not reference liability insurance, the comment by Crawford’s defense counsel did not open the door to discussing the issue of insurance. As such, the remark by the Smiths’ counsel was improper. Because the comment made by Crawford’s attorney was not a reference to insurance, the Smiths’ argument, that the judge erred when he instructed the jury to disregard the Smiths’ statement of their counsel, is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
