Court Opinion

ID: 9601082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:36:21.982486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:55.024159
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result. While I am convinced that it was error to give instruction No. 8, I am satisfied that the giving of instructions Nos. 9 and 10 made the error nonprejudicial in this case. I am fearful, however, that the result will be that the three instructions (Nos. 8, 9, and 10) will be hereafter requested and given in similar cases as a comprehensive statement of the law.
Instruction No. 8 reads:
“The sole issue in this case is whether the deceased died as a result of suicide. Where a deceased dies as a result of a gunshot wound it is presumed that his death was due to accident rather than to suicide. Such presumption remains in the case until it is overcome by any credible evidence to the contrary which points to suicide, but at all times the burden is upon the defendant to prove that the death of the deceased was due to suicide.”
It should not be given for reasons which are spelled out in some detail in the following decisions dealing with presumptions of various kinds: McGovern v. Greyhound Corp. (1959), 53 Wn. (2d) 773, 337 P. (2d) 290; Mills v. Pacific Cy. (1956), 48 Wn. (2d) 211, 292 P. (2d) 362; Hutton v. Martin (1953), 41 Wn. (2d) 780, 252 P. (2d) 581; Kay v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. (1947), 28 Wn. (2d) 300, 183 P. (2d) 181; Gardner v. Seymour (1947), 27 Wn. (2d) 802, 180 P. (2d) 564; Anning v. Rothschild & Co. (1924), 130 Wash. 232, 226 Pac. 1013; Scarpelli v. Washington Water Power Co. (1911), 63 Wash. 18, 114 Pac. 870; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. MacDonald (1938), 96 F. (2d) 437.
*282In essence, the reason is that the presumption is not evidence and that, in a case of this kind, it has served its purpose when it gets the plaintiff past a nonsuit. It shifts the duty of going forward with the evidence on the issue of suicide to the defendant, and he must prove it by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
If instruction No. 8 is not given, there is no reason to give instructions Nos. 9 and 10. The combination of the three is like giving a poison (instruction No. 8) and then rushing in with the antidote (instructions Nos. 9 and 10). I am willing to admit the efficacy of the antidote in this case, but it is a dangerous practice.