Johnson v. Hoffler & Boney Transfer Co.

Adams, J. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the jury was affected by partiality or bias, counsel for the plaintiff inquired whether any juror represented an automobile liability insurance company or any insurance company, or worked for an agent of either of such companies, or had sold liability insurance. The defendant’s objection to the evidence was overruled. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the questions were asked in bad faith or from improper motives. When such questions are asked in bad faith a recovery by the plaintiff should not be allowed to stand; but whether good faith has been exercised is a matter which must ordinarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Featherstone v. Cotton Mills, 159 N. C., 429; Goss v. Williams, 196 N. C., 214, 223. In Fulcher v. Lumber Co., 191 N. C., 408, it is said: “We cannot hold, where an attorney for a party to an action, in the performance of his duty, and in the exercise of his right, as such attorney, inquires of jurors tendered to plaintiff, if any of them sustains *422 such relation to an association or corporation, not a party to the action, which he knows or in good faith believes has an interest in the verdict which may be rendered, by reason of a contract, indemnifying the adverse party from loss by reason of such verdict, as would render the juror incompetent if such association or corporation was a party to the action, that the inquiry is in itself so prejudicial to defendant that defendant is entitled to have an adverse verdict set aside and the judgment reversed for this reason alone. The association or indemnity company is not ordinarily a proper party to the action, Clark v. Bonsal, 157 N. C., 270; it has, however, such an interest in the result of the action that no agent or employee can be held a conrpetent juror to pass upon the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant of record. Plaintiff is entitled to know before the jury is empaneled, whether any juror is an agent of such a corporation, or a member of such an association.” The first seven exceptions are, therefore, overruled. The motion for nonsuit is without merit. It is founded on the theory, not that there is no evidence of the defendant’s negligence, but that the plaintiff’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injury. The defendant contends as a matter of common knowledge that the plaintiff could not have driven his car under the conditions described by him without seeing the truck in time to avert the collision by the exercise of due care. This position is taken in disregard of the fact that more than one inference may be drawn from the testimony and of the fact that it was permissible for the jury to find, as the verdict establishes, that the plaintiff was not negligent. There is an exception to one clause in the instructions given the jury but it is so obviously untenable as to require no discussioix. The case was carefully tried and the defendant was given the full benefit of such principles of law as were applicable to its defense. No error.