WILLIAMS V. McCOY 550 S.E. 2d 796 (N.C. App. 2001) CASE BRIEF

WILLIAMS V. McCOY

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

NATURE OF THE CASE: Williams (P) sued McCoy (D) for injuries suffered in an automobile collision and appealed an awarded of damages.

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.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner