Defense attorney’s suggestion that plaintiff was intoxicated at time of auto accident is grounds for mistrial
A U.S. district court granted a mistrial and imposed sanctions against a defense attorney who used his opening statement to suggest that plaintiff might have been intoxicated at the time of his automobile accident.
Here, Lasar was injured when the 1986 Ford Ranger pickup truck he was driving rolled several times. He filed a products liability suit against Ford. The judge ruled there was no evidence to establish that plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and excluded any evidence of his alcohol consumption from the trial.
In his opening statement, defendant’s lawyer told the jury that plaintiff and friends “spent the day playing pool, visiting some local establishments,” and that plaintiff “made the decision to drive himself home.” Plaintiff moved for a mistrial, arguing that defense counsel was suggesting that plaintiff’s injury was caused by alcohol use.
Granting the motion, the court said that defendant’s lawyer had set forth a series of facts in his statement from which the jury was expected to draw logical inferences. The statement that plaintiff had been playing pool and visiting “establishments” was clearly intended to suggest that he had been drinking at several bars. Had the attorney been referring to churches or restaurants, he would have said as much, the court said.
Similarly, the comment that plaintiff “made the decision to drive himself home” implies that plaintiff made a conscious decision to drive even though he knew he was intoxicated. There is no reason for using the phrase “made the decision” unless defense counsel was attempting to imply that plaintiff made an incorrect decision when he decided to drive home.
In a products liability case, the focus must be on the design of the product, not the conduct of the parties, the court said. Here, defendant not only failed to establish any causal link between the accident and any alcohol use by plaintiff, it admitted that it did not have any evidence that plaintiff was intoxicated. Defendant’s opening comments regarding alcohol show contempt for the court’s orders precluding any mention of alcohol use, the court concluded.
Accordingly, the court granted a mistrial, cited defense counsel for contempt of court, and sanctioned defense counsel and his client.