66 A. 859 (Pa. 1907), 105, Rebman v. General Acc. Ins. Co.

Docket Nº:105
Citation:66 A. 859, 217 Pa. 518
Opinion Judge:MR. JUSTICE FELL:
Party Name:Rebman, Appellant, v. General Accident Insurance Company
Attorney:Willis F. McCook, for appellant. Wm. W. Wishart, for appellee.
Judge Panel:Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ. MESTREZAT and STEWART, JJ., dissent.
Case Date:April 22, 1907
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 859

66 A. 859 (Pa. 1907)

217 Pa. 518

Rebman, Appellant,

v.

General Accident Insurance Company

No. 105

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 22, 1907

Argued: October 26, 1906

Appeal, No. 105, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 132, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Catherine Rebman, Administratrix of the Estate of Mary W. Rebman, deceased, v. The General Accident Insurance Company of Philadelphia. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's husband. Before BROWN, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Error assigned was refusing to take off nonsuit.

The judgment is affirmed.

Willis F. McCook, for appellant. -- The case was for the jury: Boulf ois v. Traction Co., 210 Pa. 263; Keene v. Accident Assn., 161 Mass. 149 (36 N.E. Repr. 891); Irwin v. Accident, etc., Assn., 127 Mich. 630 (86 N.W. 1036); Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 47 U.S. App. 260 (78 Fed. Repr. 924); Chaplin v. Ry. Pass. Assurance Co., 6 N.Y.S. Ct. 71; Columbia Accident Co. v. Sanford, 50 Ill.App. 424; Schneider v. Provident Life Ins. Co., 24 Wis. 28; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City, etc., R.R. Co., 69 N.Y. 196; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Sittig, 79 Ill.App. 245; Anthony v. Mercantile Mut. Accident Assn., 162 Mass. 354 (38 N.E. Repr. 973).

Wm. W. Wishart, for appellee. -- The clause "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger" has been construed in the following cases: Burkhard v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 102 Pa. 262; Sawtelle v. Ry. Pass. Assurance Co., 15 Blatch. 216; De Loy v. Ins. Co., 171 Pa. 1; Smith v. Mut. Accident Assn. 104 Mich. 634 (62 N.W. 990); Cornish v. Accident Ins. Co. L.R., 23 Q.B. Div. 453; Tuttle v. Ins. Co., 134 Mass. 175.

We submit that the case of Small v. Travellers' Protective Association of America, 45 S.E. Repr. 706, rules the case at bar. See also Roul v. Ry. Co., 85 Ga. 197 (11 S.E. Repr. 558); Bacon v. D., L. & W.R.R. Co., 143 Pa. 14.

There are numerous cases in Pennsylvania which support this rule. Among these may be cited: Railroad Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. 147; N.Y., etc., R.R. Co. v. Enches, 127 Pa. 316; Boulfrois v. United Traction Co., 210 Pa. 263; Tobin v. Penna. R.R. Co., 211 Pa. 457.

Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.

OPINION

Page 860

[217 Pa. 520] MR. JUSTICE...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP