*1 WALCZEWSKI, Audrey
Plaintiff-Appellant, WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.
Ruben W. Appeals
Aug. Gonderman, Bend, for
Robert F. South plaintiff-appellant. Mulvihill, McGill, Thornburg, T.
John Harman, Murray, Deahl, South Carey & Bend, defendant-appellee. HOFFMAN, Judge. an action to recоver
Plaintiff commenced
in an
personal injuries
sustained
auto-
operated by
with a vehicle
mobile cоllision
compensato-
In addition to
defendant.
ry
sought punitive damages
damages, she
were
on the basis that
сaused
defendant’s willful and
miscon-
driving
duct
his
while under
the influence of alcohol. The
rendered
a verdict
in favor of the
$1,000
injuries.
for her
awarded her
judg-
most favorable to
The evidence
ap-
ment
these circumstances: At
discloses
20, 1974,
January
P.M.
proximately 5:12
on
plaintiff-appellant Audrey Walczewski was
in an automobile owned and
passenger
operated by Chester Hodowaniec. The cou-
easterly
in an
ple was headed
direсtion
Bend,
Ford
in South
Indiana at a
Street
with
point
Ford intersects
Grand
where
Wright
Defendant-appellee
Streеt.
Ruben
southerly
in a
direction on
Having
Ford.
failed to no-
Grand toward
Ford,
approaching
tice
de-
any cаrs
the intersection at
proceeded
across
crossing
per
10-15 miles
While
he
hour.
vehicle,
the Hodowaniec
which
observed
right-of-way, approaching
had
the in-
collision,
In an effort to avert
tersection.
quiсkly accelerated. Neverthe-
*2
229
less, Hodowaniec
Leroy
struck
Thompson,
defendant’s vehicle
Glen
wаs under
in-
the
right
in
quarter panel
the
rear
spun
and
the
fluence of intoxicating liquor at
time
the
car
he regainеd
around. Once
control of his
of the
question,
in
accident
in
that fact
automobile,
directly
defendant drovе
home.
itself,
you
find,
and of
if
so
is not suffi-
a
minutes
When he reached home
few
cient to constitute wilful or
mis-
”
later,
the
to his
defendant related
accident
conduct on the
of the defendant.’
a
He
and asked for beer.
testifiеd this
wife
beer the plaintiff urges that a state thereafter, day. Shortly police the ar- that by during ment made voir defеnse counsel police and to the rived escorted defendant pro dire of the in which he told jury the they а test station where administered spective he had panelists by been hired an an nearly hour-and-a-half aftеr the acci- company insurance have should been strick that the alco- dent. The results indicated en from the record. The record not does was holic content in defendant’s blood .12%. plaintiff indicate that the mоved to strike the allegedly objectionable Ac statement. appeal, plaintiff assails two actiоns of On cordingly, the issue is waived. the trial court: error committed in de- 1. whether was merits, plaintiff’s theOn contention nying plaintiff’s puni- instruction on patently specious. is She claims that inso damages; tive far wrong plaintiffs inject as it is for to the 2. whether error was committed in re- issue of a per defendant’s insurance into fusing by to strike a comment made suits, injury equally sonal it should during voir dire ex- defense counsel wrong for defendants do so. She insists jury that he had amination the prejudice pre to her case should be that by company. been hired an insurance sumed. evidence, close of all the the At since is untenable proposition novel This punitive an instruction plaintiff tendered plain- рrohibiting reason exists a sound It court refused. damages which the trial the establishing in tort actions tiffs presented was аrgued since evidence is that by a defendant. carried fact of insurance jury could have which the at trial frоm in Miller v. aptly stated The rationale was intoxicated when defendant was inferred 560, 633: Ind. 207 N.E.2d (1965), 246 Alvey occurred, jury have thе should the collision recognize rule state the of this “Decisions plain to consider whether been instructed damages growing in an action that damages. punitive tiff was entitled to as accident evidence out of an automobile grounds this assertion Plaintiff is by the to insurance carried while intoxicated is that premise it only because not ordinarily inadmissible or wanton misconduct sufficiently willful prej- tends to it is because irrelevant but punitive dam justify an awаrd itself the defendant.” against the udice negli against a drunken driver whose ages N.E.2d 637. 207 another. has gence resulted thе danger that words, there is a However, expressly has In other premise been this plaintiff and award v. Pickle rejеcted Thompson jury might In find in Indiana. 53, 139, an insur- merely 191 the because (1963), Ind.App. larger judgment N.E.2d 136 following as the bill.” company “foоting the instruction court embraced ance is bar, how the law: it inconceivable a correct statement of is case at “ counsel’s since defense prejudiced you from the if find you ‘I instruct that inured to benefit.1 statement that the defendant this case evidence in trial a rule of by Supreme adopted its 126 1. Felice v. Weinman any рrohibited reference by procedure. plaintiff for rule that The cited N.W.2d 107 injection question party or to either case insurer of into to the during the course prejudicial carrying error such the defendant counsel for There, compara- adopted distinguished. court en- can be has not trial. Indiana Michigan forced a statute which had been rule. ble shown, error having reversible been No court must be judgment trial DIGGING, JAY CLUTTER CUSTOM
affirmed. Below), Appellant (Plaintiff
Affirmed. ENGLISH, (Defendant Appellee
Dee *3 Below). GARRARD, J.,P. concurs. STATON, J., opin- result with concurs in of Appeals of
ion.
STATON, Judge, concurring in result. Aug. 20, 1979. result, it error since I consider concur
I plaintiff or the defendant
for either the Here, there coverage.
mention insurance objection to the statement
was no made counsel, injection and the
made defense insurance, dam- standpoint error. Never- appears to harmless
ages,
theless, damages proper case where in the considerable, injection
are invite defense counsel could
coverage by the jury as to
speculation example, a de- coverage. For
defendant’s means, heavy financial of limited support, large family and a
obligations invoke setting particular factual
may in jury. could Speculation of a
sympathies jury’s during the deliberations
occur coverage in of insurance
the amount damages to to limit amount
attempt coverage of the defendant’s
the insurance probably one reason
policy. This v. Weinman
Michigan Felice N.W.2d proper with a
proper setting factual counsel, the in- plaintiff’s
objection by
jection coverage could amount error; therefore, I concur in
to reversible
result.