Baylis v. Travelers Ins Co of Hartford, Conn
| Decision Date | 02 February 1885 |
| Citation | 113 U.S. 316,28 L.Ed. 989,5 S.Ct. 494 |
| Parties | BAYLIS, by her Guardian ad litem , etc., v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error to recover upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant, whereby it insured William Edward Parker Baylis, the father of the plaintiff, in the sum of $10,000, to be paid to the plaintiff in case said assured should accidentally sustain bodily injuries which should produce death within 90 days. The complaint alleged that the assured 'on or about the twentieth day of November, 1872, did sustain bodily injuries accidentally, to-wit, in that wholly by accident he took certain drugs and medicines, which, as taken by him, were poisonous and deadly, when, in fact, he intended to take wholly a different thing and in a different manner; and that, in consequence of said accident solely, said assured died on said twentieth day of November, 1872.' An issue was made by a denial in the answer of this allega- tion, so far as it alleged that the poisonous and deadly drugs were taken 'accidentally, or by accident, or with the intent, or under the circumstances stated or mentioned in the complaint.'
The cause came on for trial by jury, when, as appears by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff put in evidence the policy of insurance, proved the fact and circumstances of death, and notice thereof to the defendant, and it was conceded that the question of suicide was not raised by the evidence. The testimony being closed, the counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict. This motion was denied, and thereupon the plaintiff's counsel insisted 'that the evidence presented questions of fact which ought to be submitted to the jury, and asked that the case be submitted to the jury to determine upon the evidence.' The bill of exceptions further states that 'the court refused to submit the cause to the jury, and the plaintiff's counsel duly excepted.' The court then directed the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether the facts proved were sufficient to render the defendants liable upon their policy, and the jury accordingly rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sued for, with interest. The plaintiff moved for judgment upon the verdict, and the defendant moved for judgment in its favor, on the pleadings and minutes of trial. Judgment was accordingly rendered for the defendant upon the opinion of the judge, a copy of which is set out in the record, and is as follows:
'This action is brought upon a policy of insurance against accident, issued by the defendants, whereby they agree to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $10,000, 'within ninety days after sufficient proof that the insured, William E. P. Baylis, at any time within the continuance of the policy, shall have sustained bodily injuries effected through external, violent, and accidental means, within the intent and meaning of this contract and the conditions hereunto annexed, and such injuries alone shall have occasioned death within ninety days from the happening thereof.' The contract contained the following proviso: 'provided, that this insurance shall not extend to any death or disability which may have been caused wholly or in part by any surgical operation, or medical or mechanical treatment for disease.' The cause was tried before the court and a jury, when, upon the evidence adduced, a verdict for the plaintiff was directed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether the facts proved were sufficient to render the defendants liable upon their policy. The following are the facts, as derived from the evidence, and in stating them I adopt the conclusions of fact most favorable to the plaintiff that the evidence will permit to be drawn: The insured died on the twentieth of November, 1872. A week or so previous to his death he was suffering from influenza, the result of a cold, and was then treated therefor by his physician. He began to get better, when, on Friday night before his death, he had an attack of cholera morbus, accompanied with convulsions, which seemed to completely shatter his nervous system, and left him in a wholly nervous state. On Monday following he was again better, proposed to go to business, and asked his physician, on account of restlessness, to give him some opiate for a quiet night's sleep. The physician ordered a preparation of opium, and directed him to take twenty drops of it before going to bed. He was at this time taking chloral, under the same medical advice, and the opium was directed to be taken in addition to a prescribed dose of chloral. That night the insured took the prescribed dose of chloral, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ketterman v. Dry Fork R. Co
...S. 478, 3 Sup. Ct. 322, 27 L. Ed. 1003; Commissioners v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227, 5 Sup. Ct. 433, 28 L. Ed. 966; Baylis v. Insurance Co., 113 U. S. 316, 5 Sup. Ct. 494, 28 L. Ed. 989. I add the case of Gunther v. Insurance Co., 134 U. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. 448, 33 L. Ed. 857, holding that "when t......
-
Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co.
... ... Prowell v. Neuendorf, 141 Mich. 272, 104 N.W. 666; ... Baylis v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 113 U.S. 316, 5 ... S.Ct. 494, 28 L.Ed. 989; ... ...
-
Galloway v. United States
...v. Fant, 1874, 22 Wall. 116, 22 L.Ed. 780; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 1880, 103 U.S. 261, 26 L.Ed. 539; and Baylis v. Travelers' Insurance Co., 1884, 113 U.S. 316, 5 S.Ct. 494, 28 L.Ed. 989. For an excellent discussion of the history of the directed verdict see Hackett, Has a Trial Judge of a Un......
-
The State ex inf. Major v. Arkansas Lumber Co.
... ... Territory, 1 Okla. 366; ... Scott v. Neeley, 140 U.S. 106; Baylis v. Ins ... Co., 113 U.S. 316; Brown v. Railroad, 69 ... Mo.App. 418; ... ...