Court Opinion

ID: 9595906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:44:09.110381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:31.539455
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I respectfully dissent from the majority holding that an act of a mentally ill person is intentional if he understands the nature and quality of his act and intends to cause the injury even though he is *32mentally incapable of knowing his conduct is wrong. The jury found Kearbey “insane.” An insane person is incapable of having the necessary “intent” to commit a crime. I would hold Kearbey’s act lacks the necessary intent to qualify for Shelter’s policy exclusion for intentional acts. The dividing of the M’Naghten rule between the “right-wrong” test and “the nature of the act” test is splitting hairs and is not sound. Either way the perpetrator of the act lacks intent to do wrong. To follow the majority is illogical and makes the burden of the injury fall on the innocent victims rather than the insurer of the insane tortfeasor.
I concur with the majority on its disposition of the guardian ad litem fee issue.