Gill v. Whiteside-Hemby Drug Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas · Torts

TortsNegligenceVoir DireJury Instructionsvoir direinsuranceprejudiceperemptory challenge

Facts

Plaintiff was struck while attempting to cross Victory Street in Little Rock in front of a moving street car. The motorcycle was operated by Victor Wild, who was making a business trip for the defendant. In chambers, defendant's president and secretary testified that the company had no liability insurance at the time of the accident, though it obtained a policy a few days later. The trial court barred plaintiff's counsel from specifically asking prospective jurors about business connections with liability insurers, but allowed inquiry into the jurors' business generally.

Issue

Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to allow plaintiff's counsel to ask prospective jurors specifically about insurance affiliations, and by giving instructions concerning foreseeability, ordinance violations, and the duty to anticipate plaintiff's conduct?

Rule

A litigant may in good faith seek voir dire information needed to exercise challenges, including inquiry aimed at possible insurance connections, but reversal requires a showing of prejudice from the trial court's limitation. An instruction that liability does not attach where the result could not reasonably have been foreseen is permissible when it is understood as requiring ordinary care and describing an unavoidable accident. Violation of a state law or city ordinance is merely evidence of negligence and does not amount to negligence per se.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in Tulsa, Nora Benton sued Red Clay Delivery, LLC after being hit by one of its vans. During voir dire, Nora's lawyer asked to question the panel specifically about connections to liability insurers, but the judge limited counsel to asking each juror about occupation and business relationships generally. Counsel chose not to ask any follow-up business questions, used only two of four peremptory strikes, and lost at trial.

On appeal, Nora argues the voir dire limitation requires reversal. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a party may in good faith seek voir dire information relevant to challenges, including possible insurance connections. But reversal requires a showing of prejudice from the restriction. Here, counsel did not pursue the broader business inquiry the court allowed and did not exhaust peremptory challenges, so the record does not show prejudice. (Derived from Gill v. Whiteside-Hemby Drug Co. (n.d.).)