Court Opinion

ID: 9824781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:23:52.114357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:05.228637
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The appellant in his exhaustive brief filed on application for rehearing insists that, under the facts as disclosed by this record, it is entitled to the general affirmative charge, and further insists that a different rule as to the burden of proof should exist in this class of cases and those cases involving claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
In reply to this last insistence, we simply say that the rule as to the burden of proof is the same in both cases. If the evidence is in conflict and there is evidence to sustain the complaint, the general charge should not be given. If the evidence is not in conflict, it becomes a question of law and the affirmative charge should be given. Rep. Iron & Steel Co. v. Reed, 223 Ala. 617, 137 So. 673.
It is also urged that the evidence in this record shows, without dispute, that the cause of death was due to general septicaemia caused by gonococcus germs and not the result of a bodily injury sustained solely through external, violent, and accidental means.
It may be conceded, for the purposes of this decision, that the immediate cause of Reed’s death was a general septicaemia caused from a gonococcus germ already in the body of the deceased at the time of the alleged accident, but was the activity of this germ superinduced by a bodily injury sustained solely through external, violent, or accidental means? If such injury worked upon the disease germ already existent in the deceased when the accident occurred, so that it stimulates such latent disease into activity and thereby resulted in the death of the insured, such death was the result of the accident and plaintiff would be entitled to recover. Goslin-Birmingham Mfg. Co. v. Gantt, 222 Ala. 321, 131 So. 905; Rep. Iron & Steel Co. v. Reed, supra.
It is impossible to bring to this court through a record that indefinable something, which for the lack of a better term has been called the “atmosphere of the trial.” Eor that reason great weight should always be given to the conclusions drawn by a jury from the testimony, which they hear and pass upon. That fact must always have its effect on the mind of the appellate court in passing on the question as to whether there was any evidence justifying a verdict.
In the instant ease the question is: Was the death of the insured due to a sustained bodily injury, solely through external, violent, and accidental means? The entire evidence in this case points with unerring certainty to the fact that the immediate cause of the death of the insured was due to an infection beginning near the right knee, from whence it spread through the entire system, causing a general septicaemia from which insured died within three weeks after its discovery. Insured was perfectly well, working and walking without a limp, up to the close of work on Saturday, and after work hours he walked some three miles to his home. Insured worked in the mines, with a sharp pick, and shovel. When he arrived home between 2 and 4 o’clock, he showed his wife a wound in his knee, and at that time it was red and swollen and there was a little blood, but not much. When he quit work he left his overalls in his locker at the mines, and upon ex- ' animation of these overalls, after his death, it was found that there was a hole in the right leg at the point of the knee. On Sunday morning the knee was “all swollen up” and he went to the doctor. The doctor found a wound on or near the right knee which he painted with iodine, and to relieve the pain he gave him morphine and ordered insured to the hospital for treatment and to be given a tetanus antitoxin such as is given in wounds, “a nail stuck in your foot or any puncture you may get.” The doctor gave it as his opinion that the pain was coming from the infection. The doctor further said: “The *354abrasion I saw the Sunday evening, it was just as red and angry as it could be all around this place here and redness extended upward more than it did down.” From this the infection continued to spread. The doctor further said: “There was very little difference between this and any other infection in a punctured wound of this kind.” There was abundant testimony in corroboration of the above facts, and from these facts the jury found for the plaintiff.
Per contra, on this point, the defendant offered the testimony of the man who worked in the same mine with insured on Saturday, and he stated that he saw no wound on insured’s knee and that he walked home with him after work hours and heard no complaint. In addition to this testimony, defendant offered much learned, technical, and expert testimony tending to prove that insured came to his death by reason of a general septicaemia caused by gonococcus germ from the inside and not as á result of an external injury. This expert testimony is admissible, but not conclusive, and while not denied in so many words, the facts justify a conclusion different from that expressed by the experts.
Much is said regarding the doctor’s certificate of death furnished by plaintiff with proof of death, wherein the doctor stated that death was due to general septic condition following infected knee and in answer to the question, “Was death due to accident?” and the answer, “No.” This answer is not conclusively binding on plaintiff.
The opinion is extended, and the application is overruled.