Court Opinion

ID: 9658549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:04:37.462328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.643578
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the opinion of the majority except the holding that National Life was riot énfitléd'to the affirmative charge.
The opinion states that “National Life was entitled to an affirmative instruction in its favor unless the evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Mrs. Dennison knew that the policy had been issued * * * ” and “There is no direct evidence going to show that Mrs. Dennison had knowledge of the fact that the National Life policy had been issued at the time she killed the child.”
A conclusion that Mrs. Dennison had such knowledge must, therefore, rest on a reasonable inference from the matters as to which there was evidence. The majority appear to reason that since she could have had knowledge, the jury is permitted to conclude that she did have knowledge.
As it appears to me, such knowledge on the part of Mrs. Dennison, under all the circumstances of the case, does not follow as a reasonable conclusion from the fact that she did not act until after the policy reached Wetumpka. Such a conclusion, as I see it, rests on speculation or conjecture rather than reasonable inference.
Therefore, in the particular noted, I respectfully dissent.