Frances C. Kissell v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Elevator Division, 367 F.2d 375, 1st Cir. (1966)
Frances C. Kissell v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Elevator Division, 367 F.2d 375, 1st Cir. (1966)
Frances C. Kissell v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Elevator Division, 367 F.2d 375, 1st Cir. (1966)
2d 375
On this appeal plaintiff does not claim that contributory negligence was not a
bar to her recovery, or that the evidence did not warrant such a finding. Rather,
she complains of the procedure. Her first contention, that it was error for the
trial court to accept the jury's verdict without obtaining a response to the other
Finally, plaintiff asserts that after the verdict she learned that one of the jurors
had been cross-examined by her husband, an attorney, some two years
previously in a contract action brought against the juror's employer. She appeals
from the trial court's denial, without hearing, of her motion for a new trial on
this ground. Such attacks on a verdict carry a heavy burden. The mere
allegation of a remote connection between a juror and one of the parties,
without a showing of significant facts from which prejudice can be inferred,
cannot be sufficient to upset a verdict. The plaintiff is not entitled to a merely
exploratory hearing. There is no indication here that the cross-examination by
the husband was such as would be likely to raise personal hostility against him,
let alone against the plaintiff, even assuming (although there is no basis for
assuming) that the juror knew of the relationship.
It is true that each juror was asked on voir dire whether he knew the plaintiff 'or
any member of her family.' In this inquiry plaintiff was referred to as 'Frances
Kissell' and 'Mrs. Kissell', with no identifiction of her husband, then or later.
She was obliged to go further, if she wanted certainty. Brown v. United States,
10 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 230. The husband was not a party to the action, and
nothing occurred during the trial to bring his identity to the juror's attention.
Whatever may be the consequences of a deliberately false answer, an
unintentional mistake on the voir dire adds nothing to the plaintiff's case.
Affirmed.