Court Opinion

ID: 9738804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:03:07.886595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.560798
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I concur in the reversal of this case and in all of the majority opinion, except the conclusion reached in Division I that the question of suicide was properly submitted to the jury.
I think this is the exceptional case where the presumption against suicide has been overcome as a matter of law. The evidence admits of no other logical conclusion.
If, however, as the majority holds, the question is to be submitted the instructions should include one on presumption of intent.
Plaintiffs concede that decedent ended his life by his own hand. His intent is the question. Intent is a state of mind and is rarely susceptible of direct proof but a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of an act intentionally done. Death is a natural consequence of sliding off into space with one end of a rope or length of binder twine around the neck and the other end tied to an overhead beam. The presumption against suicide is too weak to stand against the facts in this case. There is no accident when a natural and almost inevitable result follows an intentional act.