Bulkeley v. Bhd. Accident Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1917 |
| Citation | 91 Conn. 727,101 A. 92 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BULKELEY v. BROTHERHOOD ACCIDENT CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge,
Action by Morgan G. Bulkeley, administrator, against the Brotherhood Accident Company on a policy of health and accident assurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff's decedent, Oscar L. Johnson, a gardener in the plaintiff's employ, was injured by the explosion of a firework called a bomb, intended to be fired by placing it in a mortar and lighting a fuse. Some of these fireworks, left over from the previous Fourth of July, were found about the premises, and Johnson was seen to take a bomb and mortar from plaintiff's garage toward an open place near by. Nobody witnessed the accident, but an explosion was heard, and Johnson was observed rolling on the grass trying to extinguish a fire burning in the clothing about his neck and chest. Two days afterwards Johnson died in consequence of burns and wounds received from the explosion of the bomb. While being taken to the hospital Johnson was asked, "What happened?" and said that it went off sooner than he expected, and something about a quick-burning fuse.
The policy exempts the defendant from liability for injuries caused by "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger," and provides that in ease of injury after the insured lias "changed his occupation to one classified by the company as one more hazardous than that herein stated" the company's liability shall be only for the amount which the premium would have purchased at the rate fixed by the company for such more hazardous occupation.
The complaint alleges that the insured duly fulfilled all the conditions of the insurance on his part, and that the death was not from any cause excepted in the policy. The answer leaves the plaintiff to his proof as to the facts, denies that the assured fulfilled the conditions of the insurance, alleges that the injury was caused by voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, and, as an alternative defense, that the assured had changed his occupation, and was engaged in using or handling fireworks when injured, whereby the company's liability was reduced to $200, in respect of which a tender is pleaded.
Stewart N: Dunning, of Hartford, for appellant. Warren B. Johnson, of Hartford, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). It is too plain for discussion that the act of setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargett v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 179
...233 Ky. 840, 27 S.W.2d 422 (1930); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Baker, 145 Okl. 100, 291 P. 962 (1930); Bulkeley v. Brotherhood Accident Co., 91 Conn. 727, 101 A. 92 (1917); Meyer v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 130 Minn. 242, 153 N.W. 523 (1915); Starr v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 41 Wash. 199, 83 P. ......
- Turner v. Connecticut Co.
-
Stukas v. Warfield, Pratt, Howell Co.
... ... Stukas, who was fatally injured in an elevator accident in a ... building owned by the defendant in Sioux City, Iowa. There ... was a verdict and ... see 3 Wigmore on Evidence, Sections 1745-1757; also, ... Bulkeley v. Brotherhood Acc. Co. , 91 Conn. 727, 101 ... A. 92; Roach v. Great Northern R. Co. , (Minn.) ... ...
-
Stukas v. Warfield, Pratt, Howell Co.
...transaction. For a very thorough discussion of the res gestæ doctrine, see 3 Wigmore's Evidence, §§ 1745-1757; also Bulkley v. Brotherhood, 91 Conn. 727, 101 Atl. 92;Roach v. G. N. Ry. Co., 133 Minn. 257, 158 N. W. 232. [6] III. The appellant argues that, even if the testimony showing state......