68 S.W. 236 (Mo.App. 1902), Overbeck v. Travelers Insurance Company
|Citation:||68 S.W. 236, 94 Mo.App. 453|
|Opinion Judge:||BROADDUS, J.|
|Party Name:||A. P. OVERBECK, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent|
|Attorney:||Duncan & Utz for appellant. Vinton Pike for respondent.|
|Case Date:||May 05, 1902|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. W. K. James, Judge.
(1) In the interpretation of insurance policies with reference to ambiguous and uncertain language, the court will interpret it most favorably to the holder, see Norman v. Ins. Co., 74 Mo. App., near bottom of page 461; Brown v. Ins. Co., 45 Mo. 221; Burnett v. Ins. Co., 68 Mo.App. 343; Hoffman v. Accident Indemnity Co., 56 Mo.App. 301. (2) As to the question of voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, will say that from the facts and circumstances adduced in evidence, plaintiff did nothing that any ordinarily prudent person would not have done under like circumstances, and in fact we believe he acted as the great majority of passengers do under like circumstances and that as the evidence showed in this case, it was necessary to be ready to alight promptly when the train comes to a stand, to avoid being carried past the station, and the court erred in his ruling on that point. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 59 S.W. 7; Marx v. Ins. Co., 39 F. 321; Schneider v. Ins. Co., 58 Wis. 13.
(1) In actions at law, where there is any evidence to support the verdict the appellate court will not review the facts, except in extreme cases where the preponderance of testimony is very great, and the verdict is so strongly opposed to all reasonable probabilities as to be the manifest result of mistake, bias, or prejudice: Spohn's case, 87 Mo. 74; McClanahan v. Payne, 86 Mo.App. 289; Snyder v. Railway, 85 Mo.App. 498; Finkelnberg's Appellate Practice, 112; Lesieur v. Zimmerman, 88 Mo.App. 662. (2) The danger was not hidden, unknown, or unlikely to happen. He voluntarily exposed himself to an unnecessary danger and the injury happened which there was reason to fear. Tuttle v. Ins. Co., 134 Mass. 175; Smith v. Acct. Assn., 104 Mich. 365. (3) The inconvenience of being carried beyond his destination did not make the danger incurred a necessary danger. Toledo, etc. v. Wingate, 143 Ind. 125; McDonald v. Railway, 87 Me. 466; Burgen v. Railway, 115 N.C. 673; Scheffler v. Railway, 96 Wis. 141. (4) Plaintiff was trying to leave a moving conveyance. As to this defense the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP