Economic Illusions Underlying Law

Abstract

one might come to the conclusion that whether proof of non-volition of the decedent or of or of both is stated as a requisite of claimant's case, in the great majority of cases, probably would make no difference; but, inasmuch as a general state of non-volition in the mind, especially in a well developed case of insanity, is a thing often so distinctly evidenced by objective manifestations as to be fairly susceptible of proof, while is likely to be a thing so strictly subjective as to give little or no objective manifestation prior to the suicidal act and therefore likely to be unsusceptible of proof, probably a formula directly making volition the pivotal * Professor of Law, De Paul University. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW point upon which to decide the case is preferable to a formula making the case turn upon impulse. It is of course true that the very reason for talking about is that the suicide upon is not a volitional suicide; but, because of the subjective approach through the uncontrollable impulse formula, it would seem that industrial boards may find it more difficult to justify in their own minds award to the claimant under this formula than under the formula stressing volition. It may be comparatively easy to adduce some objective proof that the decedent was so insane that he was incapable of entertaining any volition, so that there is some proof to sustain award; but it may be somewhat more difficult to find any proof that the decedent actually had to commit suicide, for the fact of lies in the field of the subjective, which is not so easily penetrable by proof. In general, in workmen's compensation cases, courts seem inclined to follow loosely, perhaps a greater liberality to plaintiff, the general principles of the common law as to causation and of inclusion of damage within or exclusion from the operation of the rule of law invoked by the plaintiff, just as they have done in cases brought under wrongful death statutes.' In one case, a board's award of compensation for suicide was permitted by I Daniels v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 183 Mass. 393, 67 N.E. 424, 62 L.R.A. 751 (x903), is a wrongful death case in which recovery was refused because the uncontroverted evidence tended to show that decedent with deliberate purpose, planned to take his own life, that he had an understanding of the physical nature and effect of his act, and that he had a willful and intelligent purpose to accomplish it. This case is often cited and followed in workmen's compensation cases. See Tetrault's Case, 278 Mass. 447, i8o N.E. 231