MILLER, P. J., REESE and GOBEIL, JJ.
Miller, Presiding Judge.
civil action, Tanisha Marshall sued AIKG, LLC, alleging
negligence in the operation of its indoor go-kart facility
where Marshall sustained serious bodily injuries from a crash
while operating a go-kart. Following a jury verdict and
judgment in Marshall's favor, AIKG, LLC appeals. In its
sole enumeration of error,  AIKG argues that the trial court
erred in granting Marshall's
Batson challenge to the use of its peremptory
strikes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
record shows that Marshall filed a complaint against AIKG
after sustaining injuries from a crash while operating a
go-kart at AIKG's facility, and the case proceeded to
trial. During voir dire, Marshall raised a Batson
challenge regarding AIKG's use of its peremptory strikes.
Marshall argued that of the twenty-five members of the jury
pool, fifteen were Caucasian and ten were African-American,
and of the ten African-American prospective jurors, only
three of those jurors were selected. The trial court noted
that all of the strikes used by AIKG were against
African-Americans, and directed AIKG to respond to
Marshall's Batson challenge.
began its response by noting that it had not used all of its
peremptory strikes and had one strike remaining. AIKG then
provided explanations for each of its strikes. As to the
first strike, AIKG's counsel explained,
So my first strike was Number 11. This was a retired
gentlemen and in my experience I typically do not like
retirees, no matter what their background is. I find that
they, I don't know if it's from daytime television or
what, but in my experience retirees have not been
particularly good defense jurors.
the second strike, AIKG's counsel said,
Number 13, . . . we didn't learn that much information
from [Juror 13]. The only note that I have written down about
[Juror 13] was that she commented during [Mr.]
Hoffspiegel's voir dire that when people drive too fast,
it can lead to great injuries or death.
Mr. Hoffspiegel, as I saw a preview of his case yesterday,
during opening statements, the case that we mistried is going
to be spending a great deal of time, I think, in this case
discussing speed, which is why I noted that, and which is why
I struck Juror Number 13.
the third strike, AIKG's counsel explained,
Juror Number 14, . . . -- Oh, she's also -- She
didn't have -- [Juror 13] and [Juror 14] were the two
ladies that were seated side by side and neither one of them
offered us much information to glean about them despite Mr.
Hoffspiegel's fairly extensive voir dire and the only
thing that I wrote down with her is that she had a pretty
visceral reaction to one of the questions during Mr.
Hoffspiegel's examination, which was that she was very,
very, very adamant about seatbelt usage and seemed to
indicate that she thought that seatbelts would basically
prevent any sort of injury.
the fourth strike, AIKG's counsel stated,
Number 17 was a juror that I actually followed up on because
he said something during Mr. Hoffspiegel's questioning
that caused me a little bit of concern and that was that, if
you don't follow the rules, people get hurt, and again
having access to having heard Mr. Hoffspiegel's opening
statement yesterday, and frankly his voir dire both days, I
know that this is going to be a ...