Gen. No. 19,339.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and ebbob, § 1502 * —when improper questions ashed of jurors on voir dire reversible error. In an action for personal Injuries sustained hy reason of the unsafe condition of a window, during the examination of the jury plaintiff’s counsel asked a juror: “Do you know anyone connected with the Aetna Insurance Company?” and asked three other jurors: “Do you carry casualty insurance?” The questions were objected to as indicating and suggesting to the jury that the defendant was insured against liability by the insurance company and that the defense was conducted by it, *318and the objections were sustained, but a motion by defendant’s counsel to withdraw a juror and continue the case on the ground that the error was not cured merely by sustaining the objections were overruled. Held that the action of the court in overruling defendant’s motion was reversible error, that the fact that the court sustained objections to the questions indicated that the court did consider the examination as made for the purpose of enabling counsel to exercise the right of peremptory challenge and that the harm was done when the improper questions were asked.
*317Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John P. McGoorty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed June 15, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Marie R. Rice against Warner Hotel Company, a corporation, to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff through defendant’s negligence in failing to use reasonable care to keep a window in a reasonably safe condition. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for four thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.
Calhoun, Lyford & Sheean, for appellant; Edward W. Rawlins, of counsel.
Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellee; Edward W. Everett, of counsel.
Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch
delivered the opinion of the court.
*3182. Appeal and ebrob, § 1474*—when permitting expert testimony reversible error. In an action for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the defective condition of a window, permitting experts to testify as to the effect upon a window pane of permitting the glass to become loose, held reversible error, as giving undue weight to plaintiff’s testimony.