General Acc. & Life Assur. Corp. v. Meredith

• Decision Date: 07 December 1910
• Citation: 132 S.W. 191,141 Ky. 92
• Parties: GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIFE ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited, v. MEREDITH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

132 S.W. 191

141 Ky. 92

GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIFE ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited, v. MEREDITH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 7, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County.

Action by Cora M. Meredith against the General Accident & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. H Gilliam and Bradburn & Basham, for appellant.

Goad &amp Oliver, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

The General Accident & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited issued to Dr. W. E. Meredith an accident policy. He died while the policy was in force, and this action was brought by his wife, Cora M. Meredith, to recover on the policy. On a trial of the case in the circuit court before a jury there was a verdict in her favor for $500. The court entered judgment on the verdict, refusing the defendant a new trial, and it appeals.

The instructions of the court are not made a part of the record, and there were no material exceptions taken to the testimony introduced on the trial. Practically the only ground of complaint on the appeal is that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence. The facts of the case are these: Dr. Meredith lived at Scottsville, Ky.; he and his brother conducting an infirmary there. On January 21, 1909, he and his wife and several others went to Nashville, Tenn., stopping at the Maxwell House. In the afternoon he and his wife returned to the station about 15 minutes before train time, and there the doctor remembered that he had left his overcoat at the Maxwell House. He went after his overcoat. About the time the train he wished to take was due to start he came back on a street car, and, having gotten off the street car, ran down the pavement toward the station. His attention being fixed on the train, he failed to notice when he reached the end of the pavement, where there was a step down of about eight inches; and, when he made this step, he received a jolt. His wife was with the conductor holding the train for him. He walked slowly from this point to where his wife was, and was pale and suffering when he reached her. He continued to suffer after he got on the train, and, when he reached Gallatin, he got off, took a hack, and went to a drug store where he got some medicine. After this he went on home. He suffered that night. The next morning he was a little better, and he made a call on a patient, and on the next day he made another call, but, returning from that visit, he went to bed, and was not out of bed any more. He died on January 29th. The proof for the plaintiff on the trial showed that he died of intussusception, which is the slipping of one bowel into another. His brother, who was on the train with him, and treated him from that time until he died, as well as two other physicians who were called into the case, testified that in their judgment the jolt which he received when he stepped from the pavement caused the bowel to slip into the other; that this had produced the pain which immediately followed, and caused him to be pale when he reached his wife, and also caused the tenderness and swelling of the bowels which soon thereafter set up; that at first the obstruction of the bowel was partial, but that later the obstruction became total, and after this they were unable to get any action on his bowels, and he died from intussusception. The plaintiff sustained her theory as to the causes of his death by four physicians whom she introduced. The defendant introduced four physicians, who did not see the deceased or know his symptoms, who gave it as their opinion that his death could not have been caused by intussusception. We cannot say that the jury were not warranted in believing the witnesses for the plaintiff. There was no contradictory evidence as to the facts they stated, and these facts went far to sustain the conclusion that they reached.

It is insisted, however, that the facts shown do not warrant the recovery had under the policy. The policy provides among other things that the company thereby insured the deceased as follows:

"Total Accident Disability. (a) At the rate of fifty dollars per month, for a period not exceeding twenty-four consecutive months, against total loss of time resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means, and which wholly and continuously from date of accident disable and prevent the assured from performing every duty pertaining to any business or occupation.

"Partial Disability. (b) Or, if such injuries shall wholly and continuously, from date of accident, disable and prevent the assured from performing one or more important daily duties pertaining to his occupation, or in event of like disability immediately following total loss of time, the company will pay the assured for the

...