Court Opinion

ID: 9774623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:27:09.832825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:32.919432
License: Public Domain

STEAKLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree that the circumstances rule out any hypothesis except that the insured committed suicide, or are conclusive against the jury finding that he did not. True it may be that the more reasonable hypothesis is suicide, and that such is the preponderance of the evidence. But these are questions for jury decision, not ours.
The majority relies on Combined American Insurance Co. v. Blanton, Tex., 353 S.W.2d 847. In my view the facts here are considerably less supportive of the suicide hypothesis than in Blanton. But more to the point is that Blanton was a suit to recover for loss of life by accidental means and our holding was that “there is no evidence which would support a reasonable inference that Blanton’s death was caused by accidental means.” We distinguished United Fidelity Life Insurance Co. v. Adair (Tex.Com.App.), 29 S.W.2d 944, in which the Court refused to disturb a jury finding that the deceased did not commit suicide, by recognizing that in Adair the suit was on a life policy and there, as here, the insurer relied upon the defense of suicide; whereas, in Blanton “[s]mcide was not an affirmative defense. The negative of suicide was an element of Plaintiff's case.” The Court of Civil Appeals in the case at har recognized this distinction and followed Blanton, with which I agree, in disregarding the jury finding against suicide with respect to the phase of respondent’s suit seeking recovery for accidental death.
The facts here are considerably less supportive of suicide than in Grand Fraternity v. Melton, 102 Tex. 399, 117 S.W. 788, where, among other things, there were witnesses upon the scene after the pistol shot and before death, and there was actually no basis for any hypothesis except suicide. Nor am I able to reconcile the majority decision here with the judgment we left undisturbed in Great Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App., 343 S.W.2d 921, writ ref. n. r. e. The judgment was for both life and accidental death benefits. The deceased was found dead with a .22 pump rifle by his body. There were no eye witnesses. He had been shot twice. The only way two shots could have been fired was by working the pump lever mechanism of the rifle. One empty shell was found near the body and the other was in the rifle. It was argued by the insurer that it was beyond probability that the deceased accidentally shot himself twice. But there were other circumstances favorable to a non-suicidal death and a majority of the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the judgment of the trial court should stand.
It was a difficult, perhaps impossible, burden in the case at bar for respondent to *784prove that the insured met his death from means other than suicide. It was an equally difficult, if not impossible, burden for petitioner to prove that the insured committed suicide. The law properly presumes against suicide.
The facts and circumstances are reviewed in the majority opinion. Disputes in the testimony are recognized. There are various matters of particular emphasis. Proof could not be made that the bullet which killed the deceased was fired from the gun found with him. The discovery of the badly decomposed body in a remote and isolated location seven days after death, during which time the automobile was closed and without air circulation, rendered many facts unavailable. The body in its state of decomposition could not show any evidence of a struggle. The taking of finger prints was not possible. Intervening rains prevented any evidence of foot prints or tire marks of another automobile. The circumstances suggested the possibility of the involvement of an unknown person, or persons. Persons committing foul play on the deceased could have done so either at the location of the automobile or elsewhere; if the latter, the deceased and his automobile could have been driven to the isolated location and the body and surrounding circumstances there contrived to give the appearance of suicide. The isolated location afforded ample time for the possible assailants to go far away.
Even granting that the foregoing is speculation, it must be recognized that what actually happened is necessarily in the field of speculation in the sense that we are compelled to reason and theorize about a matter which does not admit of direct proof or substantiation. We surely are not to say that the finding of a body in circumstances strongly indicative of suicide is always to be held conclusive. It is too well known that foul play can be made to appear as suicide and that accidents can so appear. We can go too far in supplanting fact findings of a jury with our strong beliefs about what actually occurred. I think the majority has done so here.
SMITH and WALKER, JJ., join in the dissent.