von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Decision Date10 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 12091,12091
Citation361 So.2d 283
PartiesPatricia Jarvis von DAMECK et al. v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiffs-appellants Patricia Jarvis von Dameck et al.

John W. L. Swanner, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

CHIASSON, Judge.

This is a wrongful death action brought by the surviving parents and siblings of Sharon Jarvis Cayer against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), the liability insurer of her husband, Dr. Louis Cayer.

At approximately 3:00 o'clock P.M. on January 19, 1976, the bodies of Dr. Cayer and his wife, Sharon, were found in the bedroom of their residence in Pineville, Louisiana, by a Rapides Parish Deputy Sheriff. Autopsies revealed that the wife had received three gunshot wounds from 32 caliber bullets in the anterior chest and that the husband had received one gunshot wound from a 32 caliber bullet in the posterior pharynx at the level of the hard palate. The wife's wounds were located in the following areas, although the order in which they were received was not determined: first, one in the anterior chest in the exact midline and 5.0 cm below the sternal notch; second, one 3.0 cm below the one previously mentioned and 2.0 cm to the left of the midline; third, one at the level of the xiphoid process and 6.5 cm to the right of the midline.

The circumstances surrounding the deaths indicate an apparent murder-suicide; that having shot his wife with a 32 caliber pistol, Dr. Cayer then took his own life in the same manner. Although the time of the deaths was recorded as both being at 8:00 o'clock P.M., January 18, 1976, on the certificates of death, the autopsy reports listed the time of death of both parties as "unknown".

Suit was filed by Patricia Jarvis von Dameck, Cedric Wayne Jarvis and John T. Jarvis, the sister and brothers of Sharon Jarvis Cayer, and by Sammie Sistrunk Jarvis and Cedric Scott Jarvis, Sharon's mother and father, on April 30, 1976. In response thereto the defendant, St. Paul, filed an answer admitting the existence of certain policies issued by it to Dr. Cayer, but denying liability under the terms of the said policies. The defendant further filed peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action as to all plaintiffs, which exceptions were referred to the merits.

Finding that Dr. Cayer predeceased his wife, the trial judge overruled the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action as to the parents on the basis of La.R.C.C. Article 2315. As to the brothers and sister, the exceptions were sustained and their claims were dismissed. The trial judge further found that although the plaintiffs proved that Dr. Cayer was insane at the time he shot his wife, that the defendant had carried its burden of proving that the act of Dr. Cayer was intentional and that the policies issued by the defendant to Dr. Cayer excluded coverage in the case of intentional injuries.

Finally, the trial judge found that it would not make any legal difference whether Dr. Cayer was sane or insane at the time for the following reasons:

"A. If the doctor was sane, his actions were intentional, thereby excluding coverage.

"B. If the doctor was insane, he would be immune from legal liability, ipso facto making his insurer immune."

Accordingly, judgment was rendered dismissing the claims of plaintiffs.

From said judgment all plaintiffs have appealed devolutively.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial judge erred in the following respects:

1. In finding that an insane person is capable of committing an intentional tort;

2. In following the decision of Yancey v. Maestri, 155 So. 509 (Orl.App.1934) to reach his conclusion that an insane person will not be held liable for his torts;

3. In finding that a liability insurer is not liable for the torts committed by its insured while insane;

4. In dismissing the claims of the sister and brothers of Sharon Jarvis Cayer.

Plaintiffs first contend that the finding of the trial judge that Dr. Cayer intended to shoot and kill his wife is contrary to the law and evidence inasmuch as the defendant failed to discharge its burden of proving such, and inasmuch as the trial judge expressly found that the plaintiffs met their burden of proving that Dr. Cayer was insane at the time of the shooting.

The law in Louisiana is well settled that all persons are presumed to be sane unless the contrary is affirmatively established. Kalpakis v. Kalpakis, 221 La. 739, 60 So.2d 217 (1952); Succession of Vicknair, 126 So.2d 680 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1961), certiorari denied. However, to this court's knowledge a legal standard of insanity, insofar as delictual responsibility is concerned, has never been established by the jurisprudence or laws of the State of Louisiana.

"Insane persons" are defined in La.R.C.C. Article 31 as:

"Persons of insane mind are those who do not enjoy the exercise and use of reason, after they have arrived at the age at which they ought, according to nature, to possess it, whether the defect results from nature or accident. This defect disqualifies those who are subject to it, from contracting any species of engagement, or from managing their own estates, which are for this reason placed under the direction of curators."

"Insanity" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 929 (4th Ed.Rev. 1968), as:

". . . such a want of reason, memory, and intelligence as prevents a man from comprehending the nature and consequences of his acts or from distinguishing between right and wrong conduct."

In the recent case of Turner v. Bucher, 308 So.2d 270 (La.1975), the Supreme Court, in discussing the delictual responsibility of minors and insane persons, stated the following:

". . . (T)he Louisiana and French concepts coincide in holding that nondiscerning persons do not possess the capability of knowing the consequences of their conduct; they lack the moral guilt usually associated with delictual responsibility and, therefore, they should not be legally liable for acts under an objective standard designed for normal reasoning persons." (Footnote omitted).

Expert medical testimony as to the mental condition of Dr. Cayer at the time of the murder-suicide was elicited from two psychiatrists Dr. Curtis A. Steele for plaintiff, and Dr. Francisco A. Silva for defendant. Dr. Cayer had no prior record of mental instability. Neither psychiatrist had ever had the opportunity of examining or talking to Dr. Cayer and their testimony was based exclusively upon the following: certain writings by Dr. Cayer which were introduced into evidence, the testimony of Dr. Cayer's in-laws as to his character and certain conduct on the part of Dr. Cayer described as bizarre, and certain stressful situations to which Dr. Cayer was subjected in the months immediately preceding his death.

The writings of Dr. Cayer consist of undated notes written on hospital or medical stationery. They were described by Dr. Steele as ". . . highly disordered notes that had a consistent trend of competitiveness, suspiciousness, macho male supremacy, very disorganized, rambling thoughts on how to dominate and control women, that in themselves are disorganized to the point of sounding psychotic." Dr. Silva described the notes as evidencing feelings of inadequacy and male chauvinism, and an obsessive preoccupation with women, how to deal with them, and not allowing them to control you.

The testimony of the other witnesses who testified established the following bizarre episodes and stressful situations and/or traumas to which Dr. Cayer was subjected during his lifetime:

1. That when he was sixteen years old, Dr. Cayer's father died of a heart attack at a time when his mother and sisters were away from home and while he and his father were alone, he being unable to help his father at the time;

2. That Dr. Cayer blamed his mother for his father's death, and hated her for it;

3. That while a child or a teenager, in a very heavy argument with his sister, Dr. Cayer stabbed her with a pair of scissors near the eye for which she had to have stitches;

4. That after his marriage to Sharon Jarvis, at a social gathering Dr. Cayer was involved in a heated argument with his sister-in-law, and receiving the worst end of the argument, he ranted and raved, ran out, and started kicking and punching his own automobile;

5. That after his marriage and about the same time as the previously related incident while his mother-in-law was visiting with the couple, she heard screaming in the middle of the night, ran out of her room, and found Dr. Cayer standing naked in front of a picture window with the lights on screaming he was superman and super-doctor;

6. That during the month of August, 1975, his wife left him and went home to her mother;

7. That Dr. Cayer carried a gun with him because he thought there were people out to get him;

8. That in November of 1975 he told his mother-in-law that he had gout, that he didn't want anyone else to know about it, and that if it turned into arthritis he might kill himself;

9. That every year around the anniversary of his father's death, Dr. Cayer became depressed for a few days;

10. That the day the bodies of Dr. Cayer and his wife were found, January 19, 1976, was the anniversary date of his father's death;

11. That approximately two weeks prior to his death, Dr. Cayer expressed concern about suffering a diminution of income in the amount of approximately $50,000.00 per year because the hospital where he worked hired its own emergency room doctor;

12. That as a result of the previously mentioned factor, Dr. Cayer cancelled his plans to make a $300,000.00 addition to his own clinic.

13. That a few days after his death, Dr. Cayer was to appear in court as a defendant in his first medical malpractice case;

14. That Dr. Cayer's body was found in bed completely naked and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Churchman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 9, 1992
    ...... Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 12 Mich.App. 145, 149, 162 N.W.2d 676 (1968). However, coverage ...791, 411 N.E.2d 1157 (1980); von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 283 (La.App.1978); U.S.F. & ......
  • Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • September 15, 1992
    ...... Ins. Co. v. McGhee, 530 N.E.2d 110, 111-12 (Ind.App.1988); Von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 283, 288-89 (La.App.1978), ......
  • Bazley v. Tortorich, 67318
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • February 26, 1981
    ......Pan American Life Ins. Co., 183 La. 1045, 165 So. 195 (1936). Only where the ... von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 283 (La.App. ......
  • Municipal Mut. Ins. Co. of West Virginia v. Mangus
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 20, 1994
    ......and Surety Co., 41 Colo.App. 217, 585 P.2d 304 (1978); Von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 283 (La.App.1978); George ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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