What is the voir dire test for a plaintiff in a medical negligence case?

The purpose of the voir dire is to select a fair and impartial jury. (See People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal.3d 815, 106 Cal.Rptr. 369, 506 P.2d 193.) Although the trial judge may set reasonable limits on the examination, he should permit 'liberal and probing examination calculated to discover possible bias or prejudice. . . .' (See Standards of Judicial Administration, 8(A)(1).)

We find, however, that the trial judge properly used his discretion to limit the voir dire in this case. The proposed voir dire question ³ would have injected into the present case unnecessary emphasis upon the subject of 'malpractice insurance.' As stated in Sweet v. Stuch (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 891, 893, 50 Cal.Rptr. 9, 11, misconduct and error arises when, '. . . the questions are designed to implant in the minds of the jury the fact that the defendants are insured.' Clearly, this might have been the result of the plaintiff's intended voir dire question. For it is likely that the panel would have surmised that the plaintiff was discussing the overall medical insurance crisis only because the defendant was similarly insured.