Fletcher v. Sec. Life & Trust Co, 233.

• Citation: 16 S.E.2d 687,220 N.C. 148
• Decision Date: 08 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 233.,233.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Parties: FLETCHER. v. SECURITY LIFE & TRUST CO.

16 S.E.2d 687
220 N.C. 148

FLETCHER.
v.
SECURITY LIFE & TRUST CO.

No. 233.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 8, 1941.

[16 S.E.2d 687]

Appeal from Superior Court, Yadkin County; F. D. Phillips, Judge.

Civil action by Elizabeth E. Fletcher, administratrix of James Ralph Fletcher, deceased, against the Security Life & Trust Company to recover under the double indemnity provision of a life policy. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover under the double indemnity provision of a life insurance policy.

Plaintiff's deceased, while confined in a hospital for treatment for chronic inflammation of the gall bladder, agreed to sub-

[16 S.E.2d 688]

mit to an operation therefor. A spinal anesthesia was administered. Shortly thereafter and before the operation was begun he complained of shortness of breath and his respiration became graduated and shallow. Notwithstanding the emergency efforts of the doctors, his respiratory system became completely paralyzed or anesthetized and the patient died.

Spinal anesthesia is injected below the level of the site of the contemplated operation. The extent of its effect upward is due partly to gravity and partly to the force with which it is injected. Its upward rise is controlled largely by lowering or raising the patient's head. The further his head is lowered the more apt it is that the fluid will reach his respiratory system and brain center. There is evidence that after his respiratory system began to fail his head was lowered still further.

The injection of the spinal anesthesia was of the kind and under the circumstances in known and approved use in the medical profession and was given or administered in the usual and ordinary way. It was the usual and ordinary dose as to volume and as to amount, and the point at which injection was made in the spinal column was the point ordinarily used for injections. The force used was not unusual and the instruments used were the proper ones.

The provision in the policy upon which suit was instituted is as follows: "The company will pay the beneficiary double the face amount of this policy upon receipt of due proof that the death of the insured occurred, independently and exclusively of all other causes, from accidental drowning or as a direct result of bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means, where there is a visible contusion or wound on the exterior part of the body."

At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court, on motion of the defendant, dismissed the action and entered judgment as of nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

W. M. Allen and Hoke F. Henderson, both of Elkin, for appellant.

Manly, Hendren & Womble and I. E. Carlyle, all of Winston-Salem, for appellee.

BARNHILL, Justice.

Are the terms "accidental Death" and "death by external, accidental means" synonymous? Plaintiff's right to recover depends, in a large measure, upon the answer.

Upon this question there is a distinct cleavage of judicial opinion. Some courts hold that they are synonymous--others that they are not. With us it is not a novel question. This court has already adopted the view that there is a distinct difference in the meaning of the two terms and that the coverage of the policy is materially affected by the use of the one or the other. Scott v. Aetna Life Ins. Co, 208 N.C. 160, 179 S.E. 434; Harris v.Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co, 204 N.C. 385, 168 S.E. 208; Mehaffey v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co, 205 N.C. 701, 172 S.E. 331. This interpretation, we think, is supported by the better reasoning and is in...