Bockman v. World Ins. Co., 5-250

Decision Date17 May 1954
Docket NumberNo. 5-250,5-250
Citation268 S.W.2d 1,223 Ark. 665
PartiesBOCKMAN v. WORLD INS. CO. et al.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Cracraft & Cracraft, Helena, for appellant.

Gannaway & Gannaway, Little Rock, Peter A. Deisch and Burke, Moore & Burke, Helena, for appellees.

HOLT, Justice.

These consolidated cases were before us on a former appeal, Bockman v. World Ins. Co. (Bockman v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ins. Co.), 263 S.W.2d 486, wherein two issues were presented: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of appellees (Insurance Companies), and (2) Alleged error of the trial court in failing to make a definite and proper ruling on Dr. Bockman's motion for a new trial. On that appeal, we sustained appellant's latter contention and did not decide the first. We remanded the case 'to permit the court to rule on the motion (for a new trial), in accordance with this opinion, which on certification will become a part of the record here.'

The trial court, promptly and properly, complied with our directive. The motion for a new trial was overruled and the present appeal presents the one remaining question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict in favor of appellees (Insurance Companies).

There is no contention that any improper instructions were given to the jury.

Under the terms of the two insurance policies (similar in effect) issued to Dr. Bockman, it was provided that if appellant should, by accidental means, be wholly and continuously disabled for one day or more, as long as he lives, and suffers total loss of time, the respective appellees would each pay a monthly indemnity at the rate of $100 per month for the first fifteen days, and at the rate of $200 per month thereafter.

Appellant says 'that he sustained X-ray burns from the use of a fluoroscope during the month of April, 1951, which caused him to suffer from radio dermatitis of the second, third, fourth and fifth fingers of both hands, resulting in a continuous and permanent disability from the date of the alleged accident, and that due to his injuries the appellant has been and will continue to be hereafter disabled from performing the substantial duties of his profession in the usual and customary way.'

Appellees say 'that the evidence clearly discloses that the appellant was not and is not permanently disabled to such an extent as would prevent him from performing all the substantial duties as a medical practitioner in the usual and customary manner.'

So, the sole question is: Was there any substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict? We hold that there was.

In determining this issue, this court, on appeal here, has long been committed to the following rules of law, so well established that citation of authorities is unnecessary: We are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, and affirm if there be any substantial evidence to support it. The weight of the evidence and credibility of witnesses are solely within the jury's province. We are not concerned with where the preponderance of the evidence may be. This prerogative rests with the jury and the trial court.

The testimony shows that during the time Dr. Bockman claimed to be disabled, within the meaning of the policies, from May 1, 1951 through April, 1953 (the case was tried April 30, 1953), he treated a total of 13,576 patients and collected for services $43,485.99, or an average of approximately $1,812.00 monthly. He was a general practitioner, and did not surgery. He testified:

'Would you explain to the jury what the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Dunaway v. Troutt
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1960
    ...to support the verdict. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Eagle Milling Co., Inc., 214 Ark. 918, 219 S.W.2d 233; Bockman v. World Ins. Co., 223 Ark. 665, 268 S.W.2d 1. Hill testified that he paid $2,000 to Troutt in the presence of Judge Robert Laster of the Little Rock Municipal Court. Pri......
  • Arkansas State Highway and Transp. Dept. v. Magnolia Leasing Corp., CA
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1980
    ...trial judge obviously found that the jury's verdict was not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. In Bockman v. World Insurance Company, 223 Ark. 665, 268 S.W.2d 1 (1954), the trial court denied a motion for a new trial. In affirming on appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court So, the so......
  • Mason v. Loving
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1971
    ...evidence.' Hence no error appears. See the two opinions in Bockman v. World Ins. Co., 222 Ark. 877, 263 S.W.2d 486 (1954), and 223 Ark. 665, 268 S.W.2d 1 (1954). IV. It is contended that the court should have sustained the plaintiff's challenge for cause of a juror who said that Mr. Eldridg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT