27 S.W.2d 422 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1930
Affirming.
The Transylvania Casualty Insurance Company issued an accident policy to Alonzo Hedges, by which it *842 agreed, in the event of the death of insured from accidental means to pay $5,000 to the beneficiary. The mother of Hedges was originally designated as beneficiary, but later his sister, Lena Hedges, was substituted for the mother. If the premiums were paid in advance, an annual addition of 10 per cent of the principal sum was made until such additions amounted to 50 per cent. of the initial principal sum. The National Life Accident Insurance Company reinsured the risk, and collected the premiums for several years. Lena Hedges sued the National Life and Accident Insurance Company to recover $7,500 upon the policy, alleging that the insured accidentally fell against the sharp corner of a table in his room and sustained injuries from which he died within a few hours. The jury on the first trial failed to find a verdict, but at the second trial a verdict was returned and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $7,300, being the full amount of the policy, with the 10 per cent. addition for five years. The insurance company appeals Numerous grounds for reversal are urged, which will be considered in the course of the opinion.
It is first insisted that incompetent testimony was permitted to go to the jury. In order to understand the argument advanced by appellant, it is necessary to state the facts. There was testimony tending to show that Hedges was a strong man regularly employed in his trade as a plasterer. He had lived for some time at a hotel in Louisville, and, on the morning of January 11, 1928, entered the dining room for breakfast and then returned to his room on the third floor. In about ten or fifteen minutes from the time he left the dining room he returned to the clerk's desk in a cramped or stooped position, holding his hand over his left side, apparently in great agony, and stated that he had tripped and fallen against the corner of a small table in his room. He made further explanations which the court did not allow the jury to hear. Appellant argues that the statements of the witnesses describing the condition of Hedges, and his own declaration as to the cause, were not competent testimony. It was proven that there was in the room of Hedges a small table about two feet square with sharp corners. The obvious suffering of Hedges could not be accounted for except by his statement respecting the accident. The pain continued during the day with increasing violence until evening when death ensued. A lady applied *843
liniments and hot compresses to his side and observed a red spot between his hip and lower rib. The competency of declarations of an injured person has been the subject of much consideration by the courts. In Fidelity Casualty Co. v. Cooper,
In the case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, cited by the court (Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 408,
It will be observed in the opinion in that case that the court indicated a disinclination to extend the doctrine in so far as narrative declarations were concerned further than to admit them when made to a physician by whom the patient was being treated. The res gestæ rule is closely related, but distinct from that respecting subsequent statements, and has for its sanction the spontaneous impulse of the injured person, when the declaration follows so soon after an injury that no time or motive for the fabrication of a story could be presumed. In Louisville R. Co. v. Johnson,
In Louisville N. R. Co. v. Miller,
In Starr v. Ætna Life Insurance Co.,
The principle deducible from the authorities is that statements of the injured party, accompanying the transaction, and made under such circumstances as will raise a reasonable presumption that the declarations are the spontaneous utterances of thoughts springing out of the transaction itself and made so soon thereafter as to exclude the presumption of design, constitute competent testimony. Spontaneity, as distinguished from a mere matter of time, has come to be considered the determining factor. 22 C. J. p. 464, sec. 549. The action of the trial court in admitting the statements of Hedges made to the first person seen by him after the accident, within a few minutes thereof, and while he was laboring under the stress of the misfortune, was in accord with the settled rule. Other declarations during the day, after Hedges had had time to gain control of himself and an opportunity to premeditate, were not admitted.
It is also insisted that the court erred in excluding testimony offered by the appellant. The complaints are numerous, and no good purpose would be served by reciting them. We have carefully considered all the criticisms made in appellant's briefs, as well as the avowals in the record not specifically mentioned, and find no merit in any of the complaints. The trial court confined the evidence strictly within the limits defined by familiar rules, and no error in that particular was committed.
It is urged that the court should have sustained appellant's motion for a peremptory instruction in so far as the annual additions to the policy were concerned. At the first trial of the case the court had directed the jury to find for the defendant respecting the $2,500 claim for annual additions to the policy. It is argued that the question thus became res judicata, and the court was not at liberty thereafter to submit the question to the jury or to permit a recovery thereof. It is argued at length that the court, having so instructed the jury, had *848
acted upon and foreclosed that question. 34 Cyc. 1666; 33 C. J. p. 1047; Louisville Gas Co. v. Kentucky Heating Co.,
Another insistence of the appellant is that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions offered by it. The contention is based upon the theory, first, that the claim for the $2,500 annual additions to the policy was adjudicated on the first trial, and, second, that there was no evidence that the premiums had been paid in advance, which was an essential condition of the right to the additions. What has been said disposes of the first contention, and, as to the other, the evidence leaves no room to doubt that the premiums were paid in advance. It is true that a local agent had advanced the premiums for the beneficiary and had not been reimbursed for the final one, but that was a matter between the agent and the beneficiary, and did not affect the insurance company, which had received the, annual premiums in advance.
The policy contained a provision to the effect that, "in the event of injury, fatal or non-fatal, of which there should be no external or visible marks on the body," the policy should be void. The appellant, in its answer, relied upon the provision and pleaded that no external or visible marks were present upon the body of Hedges. Conceding that there was a scintilla of evidence to carry the case to the jury upon that question, and that a finding on such evidence may not be disturbed, unless flagrantly against the evidence, it is nevertheless contended that the verdict in this case upon that issue was palpably against the evidence. There was positive testimony that an external mark of injury was visible on the body of *849
Hedges, and the issue was submitted to the jury by an apt instruction. There was evidence of a negative character, to the effect that no signs of injury were found upon the body by the coroner, the embalmer, or others who had opportunity to discover them. An issue of fact was presented, and the jury had the right to accept the testimony on the one side and reject that on the other side. A verdict in cases of that character is not contrary to the evidence. It depends upon the credit given by the jury to the respective witnesses. Powell v. Galloway,
Criticism is made of instructions Nos. 1 and 2, which are as follows:
"1. If you shall believe from the evidence in this case that the deceased, Alonzo Hedges, sustained bodily injuries, the effect of which resulted in the loss of his life, and shall further believe from the evidence that such injuries, if any, were caused directly, independently and exclusively of all other causes by external, violent or accidental means, then the law is for the plaintiff and you will so find, but unless you shall so believe from the evidence, then the law is for the defendant and you will so find.
"2. If you find for the plaintiff, you will find for her not exceeding the sum of $7,500.00 the amount claimed in the petition."
It is said the instructions failed to require the jury to find from the evidence that the accident produced upon the body of Hedges external and visible marks of injury which the policy made a condition of liability under it. The court gave other instructions, however, and they must be read as a whole. At the instance of appellant the jury was told that it could not find for plaintiff under instruction No. 1, "unless you shall believe from the evidence that there was external and visible marks of said injury, if any, upon the body of said Alonzo Hedges." The objection to the second instruction was based upon the theory that the liability should be limited to $5,000, because the additions to the policy had been eliminated on the first trial. We have seen already that such contention is not sound. The third instruction also is criticized. It presents only theories of the defense, and we are unable to discern any reason why appellant *850 should object to it. Other instructions were given, and, taken together, the whole fairly submitted the issues presented.
It is also argued that the notice of the injury and the proof of loss were inadequate, but there is no merit in these claims. The criticism of the notice is that the letter which was registered to the company within ten days after the accident, as required by the policy, simply notified the company of the death of the insured, and did not state the facts showing that the death resulted from an accident. The terms of the policy did not require any particular form of notice, or any particular facts to be stated therein. It required simply that a "written notice of any injury, illness or death for which claim is to be made must be given to the company at its home office within ten days from the date of the accident, beginning of illness or death." There was a further provision to the effect that, if the notice could not be reasonably given within ten days, it should be given as soon as possible. The written notice of the death of insured was sufficient, since the contract did not require the notice to state the cause or manner of the death. The fact of death was all that was required to be stated in the written notice. The proof of loss was made upon forms furnished by the insurance company. They were the usual forms to be used for application for sick benefits, but seemed not inappropriate for a death claim. Instead of requiring other or more formal proofs, the company denied liability. Under the facts adduced, if there was any failure to comply literally with the terms of the policy, it was waived. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cash,
Finally, it is argued that the verdict of the jury was palpably against the evidence on the main question of accidental death. It is said that Hedges died from a disease, and not from an accidental injury. There was expert testimony to the effect that a blow such as Hedges received in a fall against the corner of a table was sufficient to cause his death. Back of this was the undoubted and undenied fact that the man was hurt in the morning, suffered severe and unceasing pain for a few hours, and died. The proof is very meager that Hedges had any disease, but the jury had all the facts and circumstances before it. It was for that tribunal to determine whether *851 the death of Hedges resulted from the injury, or from some other cause, and its verdict to the effect that it was the consequence of an accident is not contrary to the evidence. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cash, supra.
Other questions incidentally discussed in the briefs have been considered, but found to be without sufficient significance to require discussion.
The judgment is affirmed. *852
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] *853