Sargent v. Cent. Acc. Ins. Co.
| Citation | 87 N.W. 796,112 Wis. 29 |
| Parties | SARGENT v. CENTRAL ACC. INS. CO. |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1901 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Dodge county; James J. Dick, Judge.
Action by Richard S. Sargent against the Central Accident Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed.
Action upon a policy of accident insurance, excluding from the risk “death, (or) loss of limb or sight, (or) disability resulting wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, from * * * unnecessary exposure to danger.” Plaintiff was wounded in the right wrist by the accidental discharge of his own gun under circumstances detailed in the opinion, whereby amputation of the right hand was rendered necessary. The action was tried to the court without a jury, and findings filed to the effect, among others, that the injury did not result, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, from unnecessary exposure to danger, to which exception was duly taken. Judgment went for the plaintiff for $2,500, with interest and costs, from which the defendant appeals.Swett & Ecke, for appellant.
C. E. Hooker, for respondent.
The circumstances of plaintiff's injury are established wholly by his own testimony and statements. He was hunting, with two companions, who were on the other side of a fence, and not in sight of him. Desiring to join them, he leaned his gun against the fence, and climbed over. His testimony in chief as to the accident was in the following words: On cross-examination he said, “I had no idea how I got hold of the gun, or how it happened at all.” In his notice and proofs of loss he makes the statement, “I had just climbed over a fence, and in reaching for my gun it accidentally discharged, the shot entering my right wrist,” requiring the amputation of the right hand. It appeared without contradiction that the gun was at full cock before its discharge. The force and effect of the clause in the policy excepting the defendant from liability for injuries due to unnecessary exposure to danger has received authoritative construction in this court in Shevlin v. Association, 94 Wis. 180, 68 N. W. 866, 36 L. R. A. 52, where it is held to be satisfied by the same acts that would constitute contributory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v. The Continental Casualty Co.
...47; Jamison v. Casualty Co., 104 Mo.App. 306; Bateman v. Insurance Co., 110 Mo.App. 443; Corcoran v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 399; Sargent v. Insurance Co., 112 Wis. 29. Instruction number 1, asked by appellant, should have been given, as prayed. It was error to refuse it. See authorities cited un......
-
Micca v. Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...and the words "unnecessary exposure to danger" have been held to mean practically the same thing (Sargent v. Cent. Accident Ins. Co., 112 Wis. 29, 87 N. W. 796, 88 Am. St. Rep. 946; Shevlin v. Am. Mutual Accident Ass'n, 94 Wis. 180, 68 N. W. 866, 36 L. R. A. 52; Pac. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.......
-
Wilcox v. Central Accident Ins. Co. of Pittsburg
... ... insured. This case with the distinction so drawn was cited ... and approved in Sargent v. Central Acc. Ins. Co., ... 112 Wis. 29 (87 N.W. 796) ... In ... Biehl v. General ... ...
-
Price v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company
...of negligence apply. Tuttle v. Travellers, 134 Mass. 175; Smith v. Preferred, 104 Mich. 634; Shevlin v. American, 94 Wis. 180; Sargent v. Central, 112 Wis. 29; Cornish Accident, 23 Q.B. Div. 453; Fidelity v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138; Williams v. U.S., 133 N.Y. 366; Follis v. U.S., 94 Iowa 435; ......