Ellison v. National By-Products, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ellison v. National By-Products, Inc.

265 S.E.2d 829, 153 Ga. App. 475, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1857

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1980

Docket59045

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 S.E.2d 829 (Ellison v. National By-Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellison v. National By-Products, Inc., 265 S.E.2d 829, 153 Ga. App. 475, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This appeal arises from a personal injury action involving a motor vehicle collision. The sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause. Plaintiffs injury was described as a "flexion extension injury” or "whiplash.” The juror stated to the court, "Judge; I don’t believe I can be fair and impartial on this jury because of the nature of the injury. I think I should be disqualified from serving on the jury because of the nature of the injury... Most people who have a whiplash injury are out to rip somebody off... *476 that’s the way I feel about it... I would be more inclined to believe the defense before I would the person who says they were injured.” Because the trial court denied the challenge for cause, plaintiff peremptorily removed the prospective juror. Before the panel was completed, she exhausted all of her remaining peremptory challenges. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Held:

Submitted January 15, 1980 Decided February 14, 1980. Thomas William Malone, William F. Underwood, Jr., Walter W. Kelley, for appellant. D. D. Rentz, for appellee.

"Jurors should come to the consideration of a case ... free from even a suspicion of prejudgment or fixed opinion upon any material fact in the issue to be tried — as to the parties, the subject-matter, or the credibility of the witnesses.” Smith v. State, 16 Ga. App. 299 (85 SE 207) (1915). "In such a case when a challenge is made and improperly overruled but such juror does not serve on the jury trying the case because he is stricken by the complaining party, such ruling is not error unless it appears that the party had to exhaust his peremptory challenges in order to get rid of the juror.” Felker v. Johnson, 53 Ga. App. 390, 395 (186 SE 144) (1936). Upon the record before us the juror was disqualified, and all the plaintiff’s peremptory challenges were exhausted. A new trial is required.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Judge.

This appeal arises from a personal injury action involving a motor vehicle collision. The sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause. Plaintiffs injury was described as a "flexion extension injury” or "whiplash.” The juror stated to the court, "Judge; I don’t believe I can be fair and impartial on this jury because of the nature of the injury. I think I should be disqualified from serving on the jury because of the nature of the injury... Most people who have a whiplash injury are out to rip somebody off... *476 that’s the way I feel about it... I would be more inclined to believe the defense before I would the person who says they were injured.” Because the trial court denied the challenge for cause, plaintiff peremptorily removed the prospective juror. Before the panel was completed, she exhausted all of her remaining peremptory challenges. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Held:

Submitted January 15, 1980 Decided February 14, 1980. Thomas William Malone, William F. Underwood, Jr., Walter W. Kelley, for appellant. D. D. Rentz, for appellee.

"Jurors should come to the consideration of a case ... free from even a suspicion of prejudgment or fixed opinion upon any material fact in the issue to be tried — as to the parties, the subject-matter, or the credibility of the witnesses.” Smith v. State, 16 Ga. App. 299 (85 SE 207) (1915). "In such a case when a challenge is made and improperly overruled but such juror does not serve on the jury trying the case because he is stricken by the complaining party, such ruling is not error unless it appears that the party had to exhaust his peremptory challenges in order to get rid of the juror.” Felker v. Johnson, 53 Ga. App. 390, 395 (186 SE 144) (1936). Upon the record before us the juror was disqualified, and all the plaintiff’s peremptory challenges were exhausted. A new trial is required.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.E.2d 829, 153 Ga. App. 475, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellison-v-national-by-products-inc-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack