From: Jrtm Area: Mundane To: All 2 Aug 96 19:47:02 Subject: The "I" Word UpdReq * Crossposted from: FIDO Legal Law Conference I just experienced a mistrial . . . thank goodness my client didn't lose the case outright. It's an auto accident case with a twist . . . the defendant admits liability but claims no damages. I represent the plaintiff, and as I examined her on the stand Wednesday, to make the point about whose bias infiltrated the deposition the jury was going to hear, I asked her why she was examined by that particular doctor. She said, "I got a letter telling me I had to go to him, from --" and she pointed at the defendant's counsel -- "him, the lawyer for the insurance company." The attorney didn't even have to object. The judge waved us up to the bench immediately and I got slam-dunked. Well, the case is being retried next week and I have woodshedded my client well, and revised my own questions. But as a plaintiff's lawyer, I keep thinking -- Why is it a slam-dunk automatic mistrial if a witness so much as says the word "insurance"? I know the idea is that the jury would be prejudiced if they knew some company was going to pay an award instead of it coming out of the defendant's blue jeans (hey, he wore them in court!), but don't most people already know that? Isn't this "no-insurance" rule both (1) a holdover from the days when insurance was not universally mandated or universally understood, and (2) a testament to the continuing power of the insurance lobby? Your thoughts, people? Pax vobiscum. John Mitchell Post FUN!! BBS, FIDO 1:280/103, PODS 93:9301/5 estron@thirdwave.net ... Lots of problems, but nobody wants to fix anything but the blame. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718