Task: songer_trialpro

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on procedure at trial favor the appellant?" This includes jury instructions and motions for directed verdicts made during trial. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
This is a war risk insurance case in which verdict was directed for the government. Premiums paid kept the policy in force to June 1, 1919, and insured died in September of that year. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it must be on motion for directed verdict, it shows that during the life of the policy insured was suffering from general paralysis of the insane, and that this disease was of such character that he could not engage with reasonable regularity in any substantially gainful occupation without inaterial injury to his health. It appears, also, that the disability was of permanent character, and that the condition of insured from the time of his discharge from the Army in April, 1919, grew progressively worse until his death, which was suicidal, in September following. There was evidence that insured did considerable work between the time of his discharge and his death; hut, in view of the testimony that he was not able to work without material injury to his health, this fact should not preclude recovery. Carter v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 49 F.(2d) 221. The jury should have been permitted to say, in the light of all of the evidence, whether he became totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy while it was in force. U. S. v. Coward (C. C A. 4th) 76 F.(2d) 875; Odom v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 70 F.(2d) 104; U. S. v. Flippence (C. C. A. 10th) 72 F.(2d) 611. The exception to the admission of the declaration of the insured upon his discharge, filed with the War Department’s records, is without merit; but, for the error in directing verdict for the government, the judgment appealed from must be reversed.
Reversed.

Question: Did the court's ruling on procedure at trial favor the appellant? This includes jury instructions and motions for directed verdicts made during trial.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B