Mutual Life Insurance v. Kelly
49 Ohio App. 319, 3 Ohio Op. 226, 197 N.E. 235 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a civil action based on a contract, evidence of a party's good character is inadmissible to rebut an allegation of criminal conduct, as a person's character is not at issue and is presumed to be good by law.
Facts:
- Harold Farson and a companion purchased a pair of pliers.
- After hunting for mushrooms, they entered an enclosed private lot owned by Mr. Brown, which was posted with several "keep out" notices.
- The screen door of a cottage on the property, which had previously been secured with hooked nails, was found forced open.
- While Farson was on the cottage porch, he was shot and killed by a trap gun that had been set up inside the building.
- The trap gun was rigged to discharge if the cottage door was pushed open.
- After the incident, a box of fishing tackle belonging to Brown was found in Farson's pocket, along with the recently purchased pliers that had jaw marks consistent with the broken nails from the screen door.
Procedural Posture:
- Blanche Kelly, the beneficiary, filed a lawsuit against The Mutual Life Insurance Company of Baltimore in the trial court to collect on a life insurance policy.
- The insurance company asserted as a defense that the insured, Harold Farson, died in consequence of his own criminal action, which voided the policy.
- At trial, the court allowed Kelly to present several character witnesses who testified that Farson had a good reputation as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Blanche Kelly.
- The trial court entered a judgment against the insurance company.
- The Mutual Life Insurance Company of Baltimore (appellant) appealed the judgment to this intermediate appellate court, with Blanche Kelly as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a civil action to recover on an insurance policy, is evidence of the insured's good character and law-abiding reputation admissible to rebut the insurer's defense that the insured died while committing a criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Sherick, P. J.
No. In a civil action based upon a contract, evidence of the insured's good character is not admissible to counter the defense that he died while committing a crime. The court reasoned that this is a civil case concerning a contract, not a criminal prosecution where character is more frequently at issue. The general rule in civil actions is that character evidence is incompetent unless character is a direct element of the claim or defense, such as in cases of libel, slander, or malicious prosecution. The law presumes an individual's character is good until attacked; therefore, introducing evidence to support this presumption is irrelevant, confusing to the jury, and unfairly prejudicial. The court's role is to try the case based on the specific facts and circumstances of the event, not to judge the general character of the parties involved.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict distinction between the rules of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. It establishes that alleging a criminal act as a defense in a civil contract dispute does not automatically place the deceased's character 'at issue' in a way that opens the door to character evidence. This precedent serves an administrative policy of keeping litigation focused on the relevant facts of the case, preventing trials from devolving into a 'trial of the man' rather than the specific transaction. The decision ensures that civil cases are decided on the merits of the immediate dispute, rather than on potentially prejudicial and logically remote evidence of a party's general reputation.
