The decision to remove a venireperson for cause on a non-statutory basis is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and that decision is not to be overturned unless there is a clear and certain abuse of that discretion with any doubts resolved in favor of the trial judge's discretion. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App. 1987). Even though a juror has some business or personal relationship with a party, the trial court has broad discretion in determining the qualifications of such venirepersons to sit as jurors and such discretionary rulings are not to be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly and manifestly wrong.

While the questions went beyond what was necessary to lay the foundation, there was no resulting prejudice to plaintiffs because the jury never reached the issue of damages. See Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hosp., 735 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987). We find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial on this basis.

Clifford v. McCloskey, 13 N.J.Super. 96, 98, 80 A.2d 134 (Law Div.1951); See alsoLeary v. West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Co., 1 N.J.Misc. 549, 146 A. 359 (1923); Grothe v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 460 S.W.2d 711, 718 (Mo.1970); Umphrey v. Deery, 78 N.D. 211, 48 N.W.2d 897, 909 (1951); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Daugherty, 116 Ga.App. 438, 157 S.E.2d 880, 886 (1967); Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404, 408 (Mo.App.1987). In order to prevent undue prejudice and confusion, the character trait must be linked to an aspect of the decedent's ability to earn money, life expectancy, or to a specific personal claim of dependency.

This court does not overlook the two bottom lines of Exhibit B which identify the exhibit as a page of "AIA Document A201 . . . 1987." This court is unaware of any authority — and Contractor cites none — which holds a bare recital on a document authenticates the document by establishing that the document is what it purports to be. Indeed, this court held otherwise in Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404, 406-07[4] (Mo. App. S.D. 1987), where this court explained: "The authenticity of a document cannot be assumed, what it purports to be must be established by proof."

"Error is harmless if it relates solely to the issue of damages and the jury never reaches that issue." Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hosp., 735 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Mo.App. 1987) (citing Guthrie v. Missouri Methodist Hosp., 706 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Mo.App. 1986)). Furthermore, any error in damage instructions is harmless error when the jury finds no liability on the substantive claim.

The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on nonstatutory challenges and its decision is not overturned unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion; and any doubts are resolved in favor of the trial court's decision. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hosp., 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App. 1987). Here, the relationship of the challenged venireperson to the insurance company was not direct.

Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the qualifications of veniremen. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hosp., 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App. 1987). The court in Collins stated, "Even though a juror has some business or personal relationship with a party, the trial court has broad discretion in determining the qualifications of such veniremen to sit as jurors and its rulings are not disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly and manifestly wrong."

Because a trial court is in better position to gauge the effect of certain question on the jury panel, a trial court is vested with broad discretion during jury selection, and its decision will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion. Any doubts will be resolved in favor of the trial court. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hosp., 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App. 1987). Appellants first injected alcohol into the equation during voir dire.

" He indicated that knowing the plaintiffs would not influence him. A trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on non-statutory challenges and that decision should not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App. 1987). A business or personal relationship with a party does not necessarily disqualify someone to sit as a juror.

See also the similarly worded comments in Kendall v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 327 S.W.2d 174, 176-77 (Mo. banc 1959), and Strahl v. Turner, 310 S.W.2d 833, 841 (Mo. 1958). The more recent case of Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404 (Mo.App. 1987), involved the challenge for cause of a venireperson who was in the employ of a manufacturer which did business with the defendant hospital. Citing Murphy, plaintiffs contended the venireperson was disqualified from serving as a juror.