Section 7.36 Clarity of Question

• Library: Civil Trial Practice 2015 Supp

F. (§7.36) Clarity of Question

Before the trial court can address whether a possible instance of nondisclosure was intentional or unintentional, the court must first determine whether the question was clear. Keltner v. K-Mart Corp., 42 S.W.3d 716, 723 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (holding also that review of trial court’s determination on clarity is de novo).

When an attorney questions the venire about prior involvement in personal injury claims, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a motion for a new trial on the grounds that jurors failed to disclose prior involvement in debt actions. Meglio v. Hebel, 759 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988). Similarly, when an attorney in a medical malpractice case asks the venire if they have ever filed a claim, it is not an abuse of discretion for the court to find no issue of nondisclosure when a juror had been a defendant in a personal injury action. Stallings v. Washington Univ., 794 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). When an employee files an accident report in accordance with workers’ compensation statutes, this does not necessarily reflect that a claim was filed. Prewitt v. Cofer, 979 S.W.2d 521, 525 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). When an attorney asks whether any member of the panel has been a defendant to a lawsuit, it is not nondisclosure for a member to avoid mentioning that her father was named as a defendant after she caused a car accident while driving underage...