Travelers' Ins. Co v. Jones
| Decision Date | 28 March 1888 |
| Citation | 80 Ga. 541,7 S.E. 83 |
| Parties | Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Jones. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
1. Insurance—Accident Policy—Voluntary Exposure.
During a dark and rainy night, for a person with two packages in his hands or arms, to attempt, by choice, to pass over a trestle which he knows to be dangerous, other ways of travel being open to him, is, on his part, "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, hazard, or perilous adventure, " notwithstanding this was his usual way of travel, his usual route to his home, and he had been going that way for 10 years, and many others went the same way.
3. Justices op the Peace—Irrelevant Charge—New Trial.
An irrelevant charge by a justice of the peace is not obligatory upon the jury; and when the plaintiff in error has caused it to be given as pronounced obligatory, a reversal here of a judgment granting a new trial is not to be expected, though the verdict is apparently correct. Let the prevailing party take the consequences of a new trial which, whatever may be the substantial merits of the case, is justified by an illegal charge prompted by his own counsel.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Glyner county; Atkinson, Judge.
F. H. Harris, for plaintiff in error. Smith & Borchardt, for defendant in error.
Bleckley, C. J. Jones had an accident policy, commencing to operate in June, 1884, and continuing of force for one year. In January, 1885, he undertook to pass from some point in the city of Brunswick to his house in that city; and in walking along a railroad track he stepped upon a trestle several feet in length, consisting of cross-ties elevated some six or eight feet above the bottom of a ditch, and requiring several steps (each from one cross tie to another) to pass over it. The night was dark and rainy. He had in his arms or hands two packages, and while endeavoring to pass, he made a misstep, and fell through and hurt himself seriously. The contract contained a stipulation exempting the company from liability for injuries occasioned by "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, hazard, or perilous adventure." The defense was that this injury was within the exemption; and the evidence showed that Jones knew the place was dangerous; and all the witnesses regarded it as dangerous. There were other ways to reach his home, but that was the usual way he traveled, and many others traveled that way. He had been going that way for 10 years. It was his usual route home; but he knew it was dangerous, as he testified himself. A plan of the city in the immediate neighborhood, and including the scene of the accident, is in the record, from which it appears that there were other ways of access to his house which were open; and we do not see in the record why he should have taken this risk, unless at his own expense. The suit was in a justice's court, and the magistrate gave judgment against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landau v. Travelers Insurance Company
... ... court erred in holding that the deceased could not recover on ... account of voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger ... Travelers Ins. Co. v. Randolph, 78 F. 754; ... Bateman v. Insurance Co., 110 Mo.App. 452; Smith ... v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 56 L. R. A. 273. (2) The ... and note; Correll v. National Acc. Soc., 139 Iowa ... 36, 130 Am. St. 294, and note; Matthes v. Imperial Acc ... Assoc., 110 Iowa 222; Jones v. U.S. Mutual Acc ... Assn., 92 Iowa 652; Employers' Liability Assur ... Corp. v. Anderson, 5 Kan.App. 18; Campbell v ... Fidelity Co., 109 ... ...
-
Landau v. Travelers Insurance Company
...v. Union Cas. Co., 94 Iowa 435; De Lay v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Pa. 1; Garcelon v. Commercial Travelers, 195 Mass. 531; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jones, 80 Ga. 541; v. Accident Ins. Co., 66 A. 859. Appellant is estopped from asserting that the test of voluntary exposure was improperly defined......
-
Jones v. The United States Mutual Acc. Ass'n of City of New York
...question as to whether the assured voluntarily exposed himself to unnecessary danger? Defendant relies upon the cases of Insurance Co. v. Jones, 80 Ga. 541, 7 S.E. 83, Shaffer v. Insurance Co., 22 N.E. 589. The facts in these cases are not such as to make them authority in support of defend......
-
Jones v. U.S. Mut. Acc. Ass'n of City of N.Y.
...the question as to whether the assured voluntarily exposed himself to unnecessary danger? Defendant relies upon the cases of Insurance Co. v. Jones (Ga.) 7 S. E. 83, and Shaffer v. Insurance Co. (Ill.) 22 N. E. 589. The facts in these cases are not such as to make them authority in support ......