Davison v. National Life & Accident Insurance
126 S.E.2d 811
Ga. Ct. App.
1962
Check Treatment

DAVISON v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

39320

Court of Appeals of Georgia

April 30, 1962

June 21, 1962

106 Ga. App. 187

аnd convicted of said offense. Their motions for new trial on the general grounds only were denied and they excepted, bringing the cases to this court for review. Held:

  1. The recent possession of stolen goods, unexplained to the satisfaction оf the jury, is a circumstance from which the jury may infer guilt of the party in whose possession the goods are found, and whether the jury should draw such inference or whether the defendant satisfactorily accounts for the possession of said stolen goods, is a matter entirely for the jury.
    ;
    ;
    ;
    . Said determination of the jury will not be interfered with by this court on appeal unless it is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or any reasonable theory deducible therefrom.
    ;
    .
  2. The evidence adduced on the trial of these cases, which disclosed that the articles named in the indictments were stolen on the night of April 22, 1961, and found in the possession of the defendants on the following morning, was sufficient to authorize the defendants’ conviction; and since the jury by the verdict rendered found the defеndants’ explanation of their possession of the goods to be unsatisfactory (a contrary finding not being demanded by the evidence), the judgment under review must be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

DECIDED JUNE 20, 1962.

D. L. Lomenick, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Earl B. Self, Solicitor General, contra.

CARLISLE, Presiding Judge. 1. Where the clerk of the superior court transmitted to this court a supplemental certificate filed under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals which showed that the transcript of the evidence was physically attached to the bill of exceptions and ahead of the judge‘s certificate to the bill of exceptions when the judge signed the certificate and when the same was filed in the clerk‘s office and, through inadvertence, the bill of exceptions was disassembled and the transcript removed therеfrom and transmitted to this court as a part of the record in the case, the motion to dismiss the writ of error (treated as a motion for summary affirmance) on the ground that the evidence had not been approved by the trial judge will be denied, since it appears that the judge‘s certificate, in view of the circumstances under which it was signed by him, did in fact certify to the correctness of the transcript of the evidence.

.

2. The verdict was properly directed for the defendant, for as was said in

, “Insurance against death by accident is usually, as here, afforded for a small premium and the coverage is correspondingly narrow. The liability is guarded by carefully chosen words, and a court has no more right by strained construction to make the policy more beneficial ‍‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍by extending the coverage contracted for than it would have to increase the amount of the insurance. Deliberately to do either would be a judicial wrong.” There can be no accident, as a matter of law, without proof of facts pointing to death by accidental means.
. In cases where the facts proven show that the insured met his death by external and violent means which resulted in visible wounds or contusions on the exterior of the body, there is a presumption of accident as opposed to suicide (
), but where there is no showing of external violent means producing visible wounds or contusions, if there is a presumption at all, it is that death was due to natural causes, and the burdеn is on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove accident.
;
. In order to authorize a recovery under an accident policy such as here involved, before the plaintiff is aided by a presumption as to accident she must prove not only the dеath but that the insured died by external and violent means (
), and the plaintiff must show that in the act which preceded the injury alleged to have caused the death something “unforeseen, unexpected or unusual occurred.”
. Assuming that the evidence in this case authorized the conclusion that the insured met his death through violent means as that term has been defined (see Black‘s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1742, and
), and that such violence was external and рurely accidental, the plaintiff‘s evidence failed to show either that the autopsy revealed any internal injury or that there was a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body and she thus wholly failed to bring her case within the strict terms of the pоlicy.
. This deficiency in her evidence was not cured or relieved by the bare statement contained in the death certificate that the insured‘s death was due to accident. For this reason the trial judge properly directed a verdict for the dеfendant.

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 30, 1962—REHEARING DENIED JUNE 21, 1962.

Cook & Palmour, A. Cecil Palmour, for plaintiff in error.

Robert Edward Surles, contra.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

EBERHARDT, Judge. 1. In their motion for rehearing counsel for plaintiff in error place much emphasis upon the proposition that a death certificate which was introduced in evidence contained the following statements: “Part I, Death was cаused by: Immediate cause (a) ‘Anoxio,’ [sic] Due to (b) ‘asphyxiation,’ Due to (c) Overdose N2O2 [properly N2O;] Part II, Autopsy—‘Yes‘, Accident (x). How did injury occur? ‘Overdose N2O2.’ ” It is insisted that the death certificate was prima facie evidence of the facts stated thеrein, as is provided in Code Ann. § 88-1118.

The certificate was signed by Wm. P. Martin, M.D.M.G., dated July 6, 1960, and filed in the office of the local registrars on July 8, 1960. The date of death is stated in the certificate and in plaintiff‘s petition to have been July 1, 1960, and there was testimony that the insured‘s body was found оn that date.

It is provided in Code Ann. § 88-1116, as amended (Ga. L. 1945, pp. 236, 242; 1953, pp. 140, 145; 1960, pp. 1009, 1019), “(1) Filing of certificate. The person in charge of interment shall file, with the local registrar of the district in which the death occurred or the body was found, a certificate of death within 72 hours after deаth or the body is found. (2) Personal data. In preparing a certificate of death, the person in charge of interment shall obtain and enter on the certificate the personal data required by the Board from the persons best qualified to supрly them. He shall present the certificate of death to the physician last in attendance upon the deceased who shall thereupon certify the cause of death; giving the condition or complication directly leading to death; the morbid condition, if any, giving rise to such condition or complication directly leading to death; the underlying cause of death; and other significant conditions contributing to the death but not related to the disease or condition causing death; and the duratiоn of each.”

By Ga. L. 1960, pp. 1009-1013, amendatory of Chapter 88 of the Code, provision is made for instances such as we here deal with where a body is found dead and there is no attending physician, and the cause of death is not immediately apparent, for the holding of an autopsy or post mortem examination, and if demanded an inquest, and further provides that: “Coroners shall require post mortem examination and/or autopsy to be performed and inquest in their respective counties as follоws:

“(1) When any person shall die as the result of violence, or suicide, or casualty, or suddenly when in apparent health, or when unattended by a physician, or within 24 hours after admission to the hospital without having regained consciousness, or in any suspicious or unusual manner; provided, however, no inquest shall be held under the following circumstances:

“(a) When upon the completion of the post mortem examination and/or autopsy, the peace officer in charge and medical examiner are satisfied that, even while death resulted from violence, no foul play is involved. In this event, the peace officer in charge ‍‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍and medical examiner shall make a written report of their investigation and findings to the State Crime Laboratory as sеt forth in section 4 of this Act, and upon their recommendation, the coroner shall make and file a proper death certificate. . .

“(d) When upon the completion of the post mortem examination and/or autopsy, the medical exаminer and peace officer in charge are sufficiently satisfied that death resulted from natural causes and the medical examiner or coroner is willing to and does sign and file a proper death certificate, and no demand for an inquest, is made within thirty (30) days thereafter, no inquest shall be held.

“(e) In all cases of hidden cause of death which do fall under the jurisdiction of the coroner, and after full and complete investigation no evidence of foul play is found, no jury shall be impaneled. Thе coroner shall be authorized to sign the death certificate on the basis of the information given to him in the reports of the peace officer in charge and medical examiner. Provided, in such hidden causes of death, after a comрlete investigation if sufficient medical history is obtained by the coroner, the peace officer in charge or the medical examiner to disclose the cause of death, and if the attending physician will sign the death certificate, such cases shall not come under the jurisdiction of the coroner.” (Emphasis supplied.)

It does not appear from the record or from the certificate itself that Dr. Martin was a “Medical Examiner.” He was not the attending physician. The certificate wаs not signed by the coroner. It was neither made nor filed by the person in charge of interment with the local registrars within 72 hours after the death of the insured, Dr. Davison, or the finding of his body. Thus, the certificate was not made or filed “under the provisions of” Chapter 88 of thе Code, as amended, and it is not prima facie evidence of the statements therein contained, though it was admitted in evidence without objection.

;
;
.

2. But, if the death certificate had bеen made “under the provisions” of Chapter 88 of the Code in all respects, it would still not show that the insured, Dr. Davison, died from accidental means, as is required by the terms of the policy. The statement on the certificate is to the effect that he died from asphyxiation due to an overdose of N2O and that it was an accident. The import of this statement is that the result was accidental, but there is absolutely nothing on the certificate as to what slip, mischance, mishap or accidental event hаppened in the administration of the gas to bring about the untoward result. There is likewise nothing in the other evidence admitted upon the trial to show or indicate either directly or circumstantially, that there was anything accidental in the means by which the insured met his death. There is no evidence that the oxygen controls or tubes became stopped, clogged or shut off during the administration of the gas, or that there was any impurity or defect in it or that there was any lack of skill in the administration of it, or that it was inhalеd accidentally. Rather, every circumstance in the evidence leads to the conclusion that Dr. Davison voluntarily and intentionally administered the gas to himself. Thus he did what he fully intended to do and precisely as he intended to do it. There was nothing accidental in the means, but only perhaps in the result.

.

“It is generally held that death or injury caused by unconsciously or unintentionally inhaling gas or noxious fumes is an accident or results from external, violent and accidental means.” (Emphasis supplied). 29A Am. Jur. 407, Insurance, § 1277. Examples cited are where the insured inhaled a leaking gas while asleep in a room, or while working in a well. There are no such circumstances here.

It has long been the rule in Georgia thаt to come within the coverage of a policy provision such as we here deal with the insured‘s death must result from accidental means rather than as an accidental result from usual, ordinary means voluntarily employed.

;
. And see
, where it was said that “The accidental happening must inhere in the act which causes the physical injury which results in the death of the insured.” And see
.

The burden оf proving that the insured‘s death resulted from accidental means, and was thus within the provisions of the policy, rested upon the plaintiff.

. There being no evidence in the records by which the jury might have found that the insured‘s ‍‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍death resulted from accidental means, the direction of a verdict for the defendant was proper.

Motion denied. Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.