Beckley Nat. Exchange Bank v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1939
• Docket Number: 8798.
• Citation: 2 S.E.2d 256,121 W.Va. 152
• Parties: BECKLEY NAT. EXCHANGE BANK v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

2 S.E.2d 256

121 W.Va. 152

BECKLEY NAT. EXCHANGE BANK v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.

No. 8798.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

March 21, 1939

Ashworth & Sanders, of Beckley, for plaintiff in error.

Sayre & Bowers, of Beckley, for defendant in error.

HATCHER Judge.

The essential question in this case is whether C. B. Pusey met his death by accidental means, under an insurance policy providing for double liability if death was caused by external, violent and accidental means. A verdict for double liability was confirmed by the circuit court.

The evidence concerning the Pusey fatality, not opposed to probabilities and about which there are no contradictions nor specific discrediting circumstances, follows. Mr. Pusey came to the residence of the Starkeys, his tenants and close neighbors, about four-thirty P. M., where he ate supper, and remained until about seven-ten. Five minutes later he was shot and killed by Mrs. Pusey on the porch of the Starkey residence. In the meantime, he had gone to his own home where Mrs.

Pusey had prepared and kept waiting supper. Hers is the only testimony as to the events leading to the tragedy. When she learned that he had eaten at the Starkeys, she called Mrs Starkey "a name" and asked why he did not stay at home and away from the Starkeys. Thereupon, Mr. Pusey demanded that Mrs. Pusey apologize to Mrs. Starkey and physically propelled Mrs. Pusey, she resisting, to the Starkey residence to make her do so. During the struggle in the Pusey home, Mrs. Pusey secured a revolver, but he prevented its use until on the steps of the Starkey residence. A rent in her dress, a bruised wrist and a badly bruised knee mutely supported her narrative. It does not appear that she was interested in the result of this case. The jury should not have disregarded her testimony. "It is undoubtedly a general rule that when a disinterested witness, who is in no way discredited, testifies to a fact within his own knowledge, which is not of itself improbable or in conflict with other evidence, the witness is to be believed, and the fact is to be taken as legally established so that it cannot be disregarded by court or jury." Kavanagh v. Wilson, 70 N.Y. 177, 179. Accord:Vintroux v. Simms, 45 W.Va. 548, 31 S.E. 941; State v. Hurst, 93 W.Va. 222, 116 S.E. 248; Fleishhacker v. Portland News Pub. Co., 158 Or. 476, 77 P.2d 141; Miller v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 194; Ross v. Industrial Acc. Board, 106 Mont. 486, 494, 495, 80 P.2d 362; James v. White Truck & Transfer Co., 1 Cal.App.2d 37, 36 P.2d 401; Annotation, 4 Ann.Cas. 982; 23 C.J., Evidence, § 1791; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1647b.

Plaintiff takes the position that when death is shown to have occurred from external and violent means, even gunshot wounds, an accident will be presumed. Unfortunately, our case of Martin v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 106 W.Va. 533, 540, 146 S.E. 53, supports that position without qualification. The better rule, as stated in one of the citations in the Martin case, is "*** where death by unexplained violent external means is established, prima facie proof is thereby made of the fact that the injuries were accidental ***." 9 Ann.Cas. 919. Here the cause of death was explained. There was no...