Garrett v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 17987

• Decision Date: 07 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 17987,17987
• Citation: 128 S.E.2d 171,241 S.C. 299
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Jerry GARRETT, by his Guardian ad Litem, Shirley Garrett, Appellant, v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Page 171

128 S.E.2d 171

241 S.C. 299

Jerry GARRETT, by his Guardian ad Litem, Shirley Garrett, Appellant, v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 17987.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 7, 1962.

John M. Rollins, Greer, Joe Robert Hooper, Greenville, for appellant.

Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondent.

MOSS, Justice.

This action was instituted by Jerry Garrett through his guardian ad litem, the appellant herein, against Pilot Life Insurance Company, the respondent herein, to recover benefits under a scholastic accident insurance policy insuring students of the School District of Greenville County. The policy in question provided for certain stipulated benefits for bodily injury caused by an accident occurring while:

'traveling directly between home and school for the purpose of attending or returning from regularly scheduled classes, but only if such travel occurs within one hour before the commencement of the day's school session or within one hour after dismissal from school, * * *.'

The complaint alleges that on March 12, 1959, appellant received bodily injury caused by an accident which occurred while he was on his way home from Appalache School in Greer, South Carolina, and that coverage for his injury and medical expenses was afforded by the aforesaid policy. The respondent asserts by its answer that the bodily injury sustained by the appellant was not within the coverage provided by said policy because the injury sustained by the appellant did not occur while he was traveling directly between school and home.

The case came on for trial before the Honorable James H. Price, Jr., Judge of the Greenville County Court, and the parties waived trial by jury, stipulated the facts, and submitted the case to the Court for its determination. The trial Judge found for the respondent and this appeal followed.

The parties have stipulated that Jerry Garrett, eleven years of age, was a student at Appalache Elementary School in Greer, South Carolina, and ordinarily such school was dismissed at 3:00 P. M. but on March 12, 1959 school was dismissed at 11:45 A. M. It further appears that the appellant's family consisted of his father, mother, a younger brother and sister, and they lived approximately three blocks from the school. The father of the appellant worked at night and slep during the day until approximately 3:00 P. M.; his mother worked during the day and had arranged with a Mrs. Evans, who lived three houses closer to the school than did the appellant's family, to keep the two young Garrett children during the day. Customarily the appellant would return to his home from school at approximately 3:00 P. M. and as soon thereafter as his father awakened, the appellant would go to the neighbor's house for his brother and sister. On the day in question, after being dismissed from school at approximately 11:45 A. M., the appellant stopped at the residence of Mrs. Evans where his brother and sister were being cared for; that when he arrived Mrs. Evans was preparing lunch for the other two children and the appellant sat down and drank lemonade prepared by Mrs. Evans. A short time thereafter he requested permission of Mrs. Evans to shoot a BB gun. Permission was given by Mrs. Evans for the appellant to use said gun and while in the act of loading the same it was somehow discharged and appellant's eye was injured, resulting in the ultimate loss of the sight thereof. This accident occurred at approximately 12:30 P. M. or about forty-five minutes after the appellant had been dismissed from school.

Where an action is submitted on an agreed statement of the facts, the Court may make any legitimate or reasonable inferences, or any inferences of which the facts may rightly be susceptible, or the Court may draw the reasonable and legitimate inferences in the same way and to the same extent that it could have done had the facts agreed on been adduced by the taking of testimony in open court. 83 C.J.S. stipulations § 25, at page 73. The stipulation here took the place of evidence with regard to the issues made by the pleadings.

This being an action on a scholastic accident insurance policy, the burden of proof was upon the appellant to show that he received an injury from accidental means of the nature and kind against which the policy insured him. In other words, the insured had the burden of showing that his injury was covered by the terms of the policy. Goethe v. New York Life Ins. Co., 183 S.C. 199, 190 S.E. 451; Rakestraw v. Allstate Ins. Co., 238 S.C. 217, 119 S.E.2d 746.

The trial Judge held that the burden of proof was upon the appellant to show that he sustained an injury by accident and that such was within the coverage of the policy. He also found that 'the stipulation does not contain any statement justifying a finding that the plaintiff intended to go from school to his home.' A review of the stipulation shows that there is no statement therein contained that the appellant had departed from school to go to his home but on the contrary that he, instead of going to his home, 'stopped at the residence of Mrs. Evans.' ...