## Facts

- Dewey W. Smith and his wife, Sylvia G. Smith (the Smiths), sued Hattie Crawford for negligence after an automobile collision.
- Crawford admitted fault, so the jury trial focused only on the amount of damages.
- In closing argument, Crawford’s counsel argued in terms suggesting Crawford would personally “pay for” the damages and implied she lacked liability insurance (or would be personally responsible for any verdict), while insisting she should not have to pay for harm not caused by her negligence.
- In response during the Smiths’ closing argument, the Smiths’ counsel told the jury that “not a dime” of any award would come from Crawford’s pocket.
- Crawford objected and moved for a mistrial.
- The trial judge denied a mistrial but instructed the jury to disregard the Smiths’ counsel’s statement about Crawford not paying out of pocket.
- The jury returned a damages verdict of $3,213 for the Smiths.
- The Smiths moved for a new trial, arguing the instruction unfairly removed their response while leaving the defense’s implication before the jury; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Smiths appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the defense closing argument improperly injected the subject of liability insurance or personal payment into the case, such that the Smiths were entitled to respond in kind.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury to disregard only the Smiths’ counsel’s responsive statement and then denying the Smiths’ motion for a new trial.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
- The court treated the defense’s “pay for” argument as an improper reference that suggested insurance status or personal financial responsibility, which risked skewing the jury’s damages determination.
- The court held the Smiths’ “not a dime” statement was a limited reply aimed at correcting the defense’s improper suggestion.
- The court concluded the trial judge’s instruction to disregard only the Smiths’ response left the defense’s improper implication effectively uncorrected and created unfair prejudice.
- Because this imbalance could affect the damages verdict, the court ordered a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Closing argument should not tell or imply to the jury that a defendant is or is not covered by liability insurance, or that the defendant will personally pay a judgment, because such statements can improperly influence the amount of damages.
- A party who introduces an improper subject in argument may open the door to a fair response by the opposing party that is reasonably directed at removing the improper effect.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in controlling closing arguments and ruling on new-trial motions, but an appellate court may reverse when the trial court’s handling of argument creates prejudicial unfairness.
- Striking only one side’s reply, while permitting the initiating improper implication to stand, can warrant a new trial when the result may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ordered a new damages trial because it found the defense closing argument improperly suggested Crawford’s insurance status or personal payment responsibility, and it held the trial court erred by instructing the jury to disregard only the Smiths’ corrective reply, leaving the defense implication in place and risking an unfairly reduced damages award.


Smith v. Crawford, 937 So. 2d 451 (2005)