Columbia Ins. Co., Jersey City, N.J. v. Chatterjee
| Decision Date | 16 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 13427. [a1] |
| Parties | COLUMBIA INS. CO., JERSEY CITY, N. J., v. CHATTERJEE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
"Collision" means the act of one object coming violently in contact with another in motion or standing.
An object which may become the subject of a collision as contemplated by an insurance policy, which makes no exceptions, is any tangible thing, visible or capable of discernment by the senses, which offers an impediment to other objects in motion.
An embankment of earth is an object within the contemplation of the law of an accident insurance policy, and an automobile which runs into it collides with an object. The injuries suffered by the collision comes within the provisions of an accident policy, insuring against "accidental collision."
Where the overturning of an automobile is the result of a collision, any injury suffered by the overturning is the indirect result of the collision, and recoverable under a policy insuring against "accidental collision."
Where the facts are not disputed in an action for recovery of damages, plaintiff's right to recover is one of law for the court.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; Benjamine B. Wheeler Judge.
Action by S. N. Chatterjee against the Columbia Insurance Company Jersey City, N. J. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Rittenhouse & Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Leahy & Brewster, of Muskogee, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff commenced his action on October 28, 1921, against the defendant in the district court of Muskogee county, for recovery of an automobile accident insurance policy. The plaintiff alleged that he was driving south on the Jefferson Highway, and, near a sharp turn in the road, he discovered an automobile approaching in his direction. The plaintiff alleged that he suddenly turned to the right to avoid colliding with the approaching automobile, and collided with an embankment of earth which caused the automobile to turn over and wreck itself against the embankment. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered damages in the sum sued for, by reason of the injuries to his automobile. The policy sued on insured the plaintiff against injury to his automobile resulting from "accidental collision." The policy does not make an exception of any objects. Plaintiff testified both in direct and cross examination that, in turning his automobile to avoid colliding with the approaching automobile, it collided with the embankment of earth on the side of the roadway, which caused the automobile to turn over. The only witness put on the stand by the defendant who testified with reference to the roadway said that an embankment paralleled the road. There was no dispute presented by the testimony of the plaintiff or defendant on the question of the car colliding with the embankment. In this situation, it became a question for the trial court to determine whether the collision with the embankment resulting in turning the car over and damage thereto constituted liability against the defendant under the policy sued on.
The policy makes no exception relative to objects, so it became a question as to whether or not the embankment was such an object as might become the subject of "accidental collision" under the policy. An object may be defined as any tangible thing, visible or capable of discernment by the senses, which offers an impediment or resistance to another object in motion. It is immaterial whether the object collided with be in motion or standing still. The weight of opinion is that water and land are objects within the meaning of the law of accident insurance policies, and an automobile which runs into either or both collides with an object. Howard G. Harris v....
To continue reading
Request your trial