Livermore v. Union Indemnity Co.

143 So. 708, 175 La. 610, 1932 La. LEXIS 1870
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJuly 20, 1932
DocketNo. 31418.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 So. 708 (Livermore v. Union Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Livermore v. Union Indemnity Co., 143 So. 708, 175 La. 610, 1932 La. LEXIS 1870 (La. 1932).

Opinion

OVERTON, J.

The present suit is one brought by Mrs. Henry E. Belden, now Mrs. Leila Livermore, to recover from the Great Eastern Casualty Company and the Union Indemnity Company, in solido, the amount of an accident policy, namely, $7,500, and also $7,500, as penalty provided by Act No. 310 of 1010, and reasonable attorney’s fees, as provided by that act. The policy was issued by the Great Eastern Casualty & Indemnity Company; of New Vork, a company which was admittedly later absorbed by the Union Indemnity Company, of New Orleans.

By the terms of the policy, Dr. Henry E. Belden, a graduate physician and practicing dentist, who caused the policy to issue, was insured “against the effects of bodily injuries caused directly, solely and independently of all other causes by accidental means, which bodily injuries or their effects shall not be caused wholly or in part, directly or indirectly by any disease, defect or infirmity.”

Dr. Belden was struck by an automobile on the evening of December 24, 1929, and received severe rupture of the muscle of the calf of the right leg, also a much slighter injury to the left leg, and a comparatively slight scalp wound. On January 8, 1930, Dr. Belden, then being at his home, after going downstairs, with aid, and after being down there for a while, suddenly collapsed, remained in a semiconscious state until the next morning at 5 o’clock, when he died.

The defense, tersely stated, is, in effect, a denial of the allegation that Dr. Belden’s death was due solely, and independently of all other causes, to the accident.

There was judgment for plaintiff for $7,500, the amount of the policy, with legal interest from January 9, 1930, until paid; the court not allowing plaintiff’s demand for the penalties of $7,500 and reasonable attorney’s fees. The defendants have appealed. Plaintiff is satisfied with the judgment, since she asks for no amendment.

To state the issue more specifically, it is the contention of plaintiff that Dr. Belden’s death was due to the accident, as its proximate cause, acting independently of all other causes, either directly or indirectly. It is her contention that the rupture of the muscle in the calf of the right leg, known as the “gastrocnemius” muscle, caused an extensive hemorrhage in that region, which is not disputed ; that the hemorrhage came from injured vessels; that later, in these vessels, the blood underwent coagulation or clotting; and that, still later, a part of the blood clot, *613 the part being termed an “embolus,” became dislodged, probably due to the exercise in coming downstairs from his bed, and was swept by the blood stream to the heart, and from there to the lungs, causing death, the cause of death being termed “pulmonary embolism.”

On the other hand, it is the contention of defendants that death was not due solely and independently of all other causes to the accident, but was brought about by a condition or disease of the heart, termed “chronic myocarditis,” accompanied at the end with acute dilation of that organ.

“Chronic myocarditis,” we judge from the evidence of one of the experts, is a term synonymous with “fibrous myocarditis,” which means a replacement of the muscle fibers of the heart with connective tissue fibers, the heart being one of the organs in which there is never regeneration of the functionating tissue. The condition or disease, whichever it may be, we also infer from the evidence, weakens and enlarges the heart. It is a condition not uncommon with persons who have attained the age of seventy, and is usually of slow progress. It is also the position of defendants that, if Dr. Belden’s death was not due solely to chronic myocarditis, this condition was a contributing cause to it.

In the forenoon of January 8, 1930, Dr. Belden left his room for the purpose of going downstairs to witness a carpenter do some work about the place. His left leg had then about healed, and so had the scalp wound, but his right leg was still swollen and bruised, so much so that he could not put his foot on the floor. His physician had provided him with crutches, and encouraged him in walking to and from the bathroom, which Dr. Belden did about once a day, though the attending physician did not say whether he could go . downstairs. Dr. Belden was permitted to sit up, but it seems that he did this only once before going downstairs, and then only for a few minutes. He descended the stairway with the aid of his crutches and a friend. After a little, he went into the yard, where he sat down for a while, resting his right leg on a block, and there watched the carpenter at work. He then went in the house at about 10:30, lay down on a couch in the dining room to rest, and awoke at about 1:30. He then went into the kitchen, spoke to the cook, stood in the kitchen for a few minutes, and then went back to the dining room. The cook followed him immediately to the dining room to answer a telephone call. At this time Dr. Belden sat down, and when he did, he gave a slight outcry. This attracted the attention of the cook. She looked, and saw him shaking his head from side to side, and rolling his eyes. He was revived somewhat with a wet towel, and made a remark showing that he recognized that the end had come. He was permitted to remain on the couch, where he died some fifteen hours later.

As is usual in such cases, an autopsy was had, the autopsy having been conducted by Dr. Hauser, a highly reputable young pathologist and assistant coroner of the parish of Orleans, acting in his official capacity. The proeSs verbal of the autopsy recites, throwing-aside medical terms, as far as possible, that death resulted from chronic myocarditis with acute dilatation, followed by a severe physical injury, including rupture of the right gastrocnemius muscle with extensive hemorrhage. The protocol to the autopsy recites that the blood vessels of the chest were nega *615 tive, excepting that there was some congestion. No embolus, or blood clot, was found in them. The kidneys were slightly contracted and congested, and showed a few healed tubercules. The spleen showed negative as also did the pancreas.

Dr. Belden was examined some months before his death, and his heart appeared from the examination to be normal for a man of his age, though, in all probability, the chronic myocarditis was then present. Several days before hi's death Dr% Eshleman, on the suggestion of Dr. Belden’s son, who had had some experience in a hospital, and who had noticed a slight irregularity in his father’s pulse, with the consent of the attending physician, was called in. Dr. Eshleman found a slight irregularity in the beat of Dr. Belden’s heart, though, as we appreciate his evidence, found the heart virtually normal for a man seventy years of age.

A number of physicians, including eminent specialists, some of them being members of. ■the Tulane faculty, were placed on the witness stand. The evidence of some of them supports the theory advanced by plaintiff as to the cause of death being due directly and solely to the accident, by reason of a clot of-blood becoming dislodged and finding its way into the blood vessels of the lungs, which frequently means sudden, or comparatively sudden, death. The evidence of others of the physicians — about an equal number — supports the finding of the coroner. These physicians see no reason to go behind his autopsy.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prince v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
129 So. 2d 71 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 So. 708, 175 La. 610, 1932 La. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livermore-v-union-indemnity-co-la-1932.