Bell v. State Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis, Ind.

• Decision Date: 15 February 1921
• Docket Number: 1834.
• Citation: 105 S.E. 846,151 Ga. 57
• Parties: BELL v. STATE LIFE INS. CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

105 S.E. 846

151 Ga. 57

BELL v. STATE LIFE INS. CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS, IND.

No. 1834.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 15, 1921

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant; and accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court was erroneous.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In an action on an accident policy on the life of a physician, a petition alleging that in adjusting his glasses while attending a patient he accidentally caused a scratch or abrasion of the skin, which scratch or abrasion became infected with germs, did not necessarily mean that the abrasion occurred in the immediate presence of the patient and was supported by evidence that it occurred between visits.

Where a physician who accidentally caused a scratch or abrasion of the skin in adjusting his glasses attended a patient suffering from erysipelas and germs entered the wound and caused infection, it was a question for the jury whether recovery should be denied on the ground that the infection occurred from insured's voluntary act in subjecting the wound to exposure.

Certiorari from Court of Appeals.

Action by J. B. Bell, administrator, against the State Life Insurance Company of Indianapolis, Ind.A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Appeals(24 Ga.App 499, 101 S.E. 541), and plaintiff brings certiorari.Reversed.

Smith Hammond & Smith, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

W. Carroll Latimer, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

This case comes from the Court of Appeals on writ of certiorari, and as stated by that court--

"was a suit on a policy of life insurance for the recovery of the disputed double indemnity provided for under one of its clauses, and which was to be paid in all cases where it should be shown that the death of the assured resulted from 'bodily injury sustained and effected directly through external, violent, and accidental means, exclusively and independently of all other causes.'The petition, which was not demurred to, alleged that 'the insured was a physician by profession, and on or about May 3, 1916, he began to attend professionally the infant child of one T. M. Robinson, of East Point, Ga., said child suffering from the disease known as erysipelas.Insured wore glasses, and while attending his said patient the insured, in adjusting his glasses, accidentally caused a scratch or abrasion of the skin on or near his right ear, which scratch or abrasion of the skin became infected with the germs of the disease of erysipelas, same developing in the insured on or about May 20th.As a result the insured died as above stated on June 17, 1916."

A summary of the evidence was also stated by that court.Bell v. State Life Insurance Co.,24 Ga.App. 499, 101 S.E. 541.The Court of Appeals, in headnote 5(a), held as follows:

"Construing the petition in this case in accordance with the natural meaning of the language used, its allegations to the effect that the deceased, 'while attending' an erysipelas patient, accidentally scratched his ear in adjusting his glasses, and the scratch 'became' infected with the germ of the disease, would seem necessarily to mean that the wound or scratch occurred while the decedent was attending his patient, and that by reason of such exposure to the patient it then and there became infected.Giving the petition what seems to be the only reasonable and proper construction, the evidence adduced upon the trial entirely fails to sustain the case as laid, since from the plaintiff's own evidence it is shown that the abrasion upon the ear occurred at the office of the

...