Court Opinion

ID: 9666341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:11:12.708059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:45.842342
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I agree with the majority that there is no factual dispute in this case. However, I differ with the result reached by the opinion. I would reverse the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the appellee and direct the court to enter a summary judgment for the appellant. Whether a death is accidental is ordinarily a jury question. However, the uncontradicted evidence in this case leads me to believe the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment to appellee rather than to the appellant. I disagree with the majority interpretation of the testimony of Doctor Rozzell. The doctor first described Marfan’s Syndrome, a condition which Duvall had, as an inherited condition of which Duvall was not aware. The doctor explained that persons suffering from this condition should avoid doing things which elevate their blood pressure or increase the heartbeat. The doctor stated: Mr. Duvall’s activity was directly related to his death because that is what initiated the rapid pulse and elevated blood pressure which sets the condition in motion. . . . The result [death] was totally unexpected. I think anybody would be an idiot to be out there chopping wood if he knew that he had Marfan’s Syndrome. Again, the thing which caused the death was the strenuous activity. There is no other testimony on the cause of death. It is somewhat a mystery to me why the majority made the decision to affirm when all of the cases cited in the majority opinion clearly require reversal. In Continental Casualty Co. v. Bruden, 178 Ark. 683, 11 S.W.2d 493 (1928), we held that death by heat prostration was an accidental death. In Hartford Ins. Co. v. Catterson, 247 Ark. 263, 445 S.W.2d 109 (1969), we held that death from exposure to cold weather was accidental. We cited Bruden as supporting precedent. In Fidelity and Casualty Co. v. Myer, 106 Ark. 91, 152 S.W. 995 (1912), the insured fell out of a wagon and died a few days later from a hemorrhage resulting from the rupture of a tumerous growth in the pancreas. This court upheld the jury verdict deciding that Myer died from accidental means. A case almost on direct point with the case before us is Travelers Ins. Co. v. Johnston, 204 Ark. 307, 162 S.W.2d 480 (1942). Johnston had Paget’s disease which was not discovered until he fell out of a taxicab. Paget’s disease is a degenerative condition of the bones which renders them more susceptible to breakage from trauma. Johnston became disabled from his injury. The physician testified that a fall such as Johnston sustained might have broken his hip even though he was not affected by Paget’s disease. We upheld the jury finding that the disability was accidental. The final authority cited in the majority opinion is Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fairchild, 215 Ark. 416, 220 S.W.2d 803 (1949). Fairchild became disabled because of a heart attack. The doctor testified the attack was caused by the unusual physical stress Fairchild was under at the time of the occurrence. We upheld the trial court’s finding that the heart attack which rendered Fairchild disabled was brought about through “external, violent and accidental means, according to the language of the policy.” The only basis supporting the decision of the majority is the fifty-four year old “Serbonian Bog” dissent in Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 131 U.S. 100 (1934). Ordinarily this court does not base its decisions upon dissents. So far as I am concerned the majority is no more persuasive than Justice Cardozo was in his dissent. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court and direct that a judgment be entered in favor of the appellant.