Williams v. Mcco

550 S.E. 2d 796 (N.C. App. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P filed an action against D claiming personal injury resulting from a 1997 automobile accident. The trial court instructed P not to testify 'that there was liability insurance, reference any conversations or contact with liability insurance adjusters, etcetera, pursuant to Rule 411. P objected to the court's pre-trial ruling. P contends that restricting her testimony pursuant to Rule 411 was prejudicial, arguing that she would not be allowed to explain why she hired an attorney if D so inquired. On cross-examination, D questioned P extensively concerning the timing of her visit to the chiropractor, the symptoms she related to the emergency room staff, and why she did not return to the emergency room although her condition worsened. D eventually inquired, 'Would you agree that you retained your attorney prior to going to the chiropractor?' P objected to D's inquiry, but the court overruled the objection and ordered P to answer. P then responded, 'No.' Defense counsel further inquired, 'You dispute that,' to which P answered, 'No, in fact, I was told not to talk about insurance.' Again, the attorney inquired, 'I asked you a question, and that is, did you retain your attorney prior to going to the chiropractor during which time you said your condition --,' and P responded, 'I don't remember.' P's attorney requested permission to allow P to explain why she hired an attorney, arguing that D was attempting to prejudice P by suggesting that she was litigious. The court subsequently allowed P to explain her answer on voir dire, outside the presence of the jury. The court refused to allow P's testimony and further instructed P that if she mentioned 'insurance' again, he would declare a mistrial and hold her in contempt of court. The jury returned its verdict, finding D negligent and awarding P $3,000.00 in damages. P appealed.