Auto-Homeowners additionally sought a brand new trial, arguing that plaintiff’s counsel had improperly informed the jury the opposite driver was drunk. The court docket agreed the references have been inaccurate, as a result of the opposite driver’s doable intoxication was irrelevant to the PIP questions, however it discovered the error innocent, pointing to a break up verdict and the trial court docket’s healing directions. The opposite driver, Charles E. Watkins, had settled with Zielinski earlier than trial and was not a part of the PIP case.
