Goldberg v. United Life & Acc. Ins. Co., Concord, N. H.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 239,239 |
| Citation | 102 S.E.2d 521,248 N.C. 86 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Agnes E. GOLDBERG v. UNITED LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE. |
Alvin A. London and Richard J. Kennedy, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellant.
Pierce, Wardlow, Knox & Caudle, Charlotte, for defendant, appellee.
Conceding, without deciding, that the plaintiff's evidence in some aspects is sufficient to show prima facie that the insured met his death through accidental means within the insuring provisions of the policies, even so, the evidence discloses conclusively that the insured met his death by homicide as the result of being struck by Dr. Black. True, it may be inferred that Dr. Black was incited to action by the insulting language of the insured and that in striking the blow he had no intent to kill. Nevertheless, the rule is that no words, however violent or insulting, justify a blow. Lewis v. Fountain, 168 N.C. 277, 84 S.E. 278; Palmer v. Winston-Salem R. R. & Elec. Co., 131 N.C. 250, 42 S.E. 604; 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 91, p. 943. And death having resulted from the voluntary, unlawful act of Dr. Black, i. e., an assault and battery, it was death by 'homicide' within the meaning of the exception clauses of the policies. 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 58; 29 C.J., p. 1150. See also State v. Knight, N.C., 102 S.E.2d 259; State v. Hovis, 233 N.C. 359, 64 S.E.2d 564; United Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Prostic, 169 Md. 535, 182 A. 421. These things appearing as the only reasonable inferences deducible from the testimony received in evidence, the judgment of nonsuit entered below will be upheld on the ground that the defendant's affirmative defense of homicide was established as a matter of law by the plaintiff's evidence. Where a defendant's affirmative defense is so established, nonsuit may be entered. Hedgecock v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 212 N.C. 638, 194 S.E. 86; Butler v. New York Life Ins. Co., 213 N.C. 384, 196 S.E. 317; Thomas-Yelverton Co. v. State Capital Life Ins. Co., 238 N.C. 278, 77 S.E.2d 692; Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 80 S.E.2d 248.
In Hedgecock v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., supra, 212 N.C. at page 641, 194 S.E. at page 88, the rule is stated this way: 'When the plaintiff offers evidence sufficient to constitute a prima facie case in an action in which the defendant has set up an affirmative defense, and the evidence of the plaintiff establishes the truth of the affirmative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bone v. Charlotte Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7118DC21
...and hit insured with no intention to injury anyone. The jury verdict for plaintiff was affirmed. In Goldberg v. United Life and Accident Insurance Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521 (1958), the provision for coverage was the same as in Fallins, supra, but excluded death from homicide. Insured......
-
Mills v. State Life & Health Ins. Co.
...Insurance Co., 213 N.C. 376, 196 S.E. 328; Fallins v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 247 N.C. 72, 100 S.E.2d 214; Goldberg v. United Life & Acc. Insurance Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521; Slaughter v. State Capital Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 265, 108 S.E.2d 438; Gray v. State Capital Insurance Co., In......
-
State v. Cummings
...to fall and his head to strike the hard floor resulting in his death from a fractured skull, it is a homicide. Goldberg v. Insurance Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521 (1958). The evidence in State v. Hargett, 255 N.C. 412, 121 S.E.2d 589 (1961), is analogous to our case. There deceased, with......
-
Slaughter v. State Capital Life Ins. Co.
...wholly or partly, by the intentional act of the insured or any other person, whether sane or insane. ' Goldberg v. United Life and Accident Ins. Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521; Fallins v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 247 N.C. 72, 100 S.E.2d 214; Patrick v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 614, 86 S......