Kinavey v. Prudential Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | 238-1942 |
| Citation | 149 Pa.Super. 568,27 A.2d 286 |
| Parties | Kinavey, Admrx., Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued May 1, 1942.
Appeal from judgment of County Court, Allegheny Co., 1939, No. 99 in case of Margaret Kinavey, Administratrix, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America.
Assumpsit on policy of life insurance. Before McKim, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Compulsory nonsuit entered. Motion to take it off refused.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
S Harold Grossman, for appellant.
John L Miller, with him John H. Scott and Duff, Scott & Smith, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
Regis Kinavey fell from the Homestead High Level Bridge into the Monongahela River and was drowned. His life was insured by defendant company in the policy in suit which provided for the payment of $ 500 upon death, and an additional sum of like amount upon proof that insured 'sustained bodily injury, solely through external, violent and accidental means .... resulting in death.' His mother was paid the face of the policy under a 'facility of payment' provision of the contract, but defendant denied liability for double indemnity on the ground that death did not result from accidental means. This action, brought by his administratrix to recover additional benefits, resulted in the entry of a compulsory non-suit at the close of plaintiff's case. This appeal is from the refusal of the court to take it off.
Giving plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference from the testimony, the following facts appear: Near eleven o'clock on the night of June 8, 1938, deceased was observed by two of his friends standing on the bridge near Homestead. He was then visibly intoxicated and his friends offered to take him home. He demurred and, instead, the three young men walked across the bridge to the Pittsburgh side. Deceased staggered as he walked but talked coherently. According to the testimony the bridge is about one mile long and they consumed about three quarters of an hour in crossing. When they reached the far side they sat down and 'talked and told jokes.' In the midst of their conversation deceased saw someone he knew a short distance away at the top of the incline and left to talk with him. On his return he eluded his friends and crossed to the other side of the bridge and proceeded in the direction of Homestead. There was a sidewalk on each side of the bridge about four feet in width, about eight inches above the level of the cartway, separated from it by curbing. There was a substantial metal railing 44 inches high near the outer edge of the walk. At the time, vehicular traffic was heavy in each of the four lanes of the bridge and deceased's friends had difficulty in crossing. In the meantime Kinavey had climbed over the top of the iron railing. The floor of the sidewalk extended about 4 inches beyond the outer edge of the railing and deceased stood on this narrow footing with his hands on the top of the railing. His companions called to him "to get off before he fell." Instead, he began doing stunts; he moved from side to side, crossing one foot over the other; "he hunched up and down" and sat in a crouched position with his hands holding on to the lower part of the upright iron panels of the railing. Just before his companions could reach him he stood up straight with both arms "up in the air"; lost his balance and fell backward into the river.
The evidence does not support the conclusion that deceased committed suicide and we must assume that death was not intentional. Deceased was 22 years old, unmarried and apparently living happily in the home of his mother. He was employed and normally was of good habits; he seldom drank to excess. The inference is reasonable that, with the dulling of his normal inhibitions, he, though he realized the risk and was warned of it by his friends, voluntarily placed himself in a position of great danger and by his conduct was guilty of such recklessness that falling from the bridge was not only foreseeable by him, but was almost inevitable. We are in agreement with the lower court that death, therefore, did not result from accidental means and there can be no recovery.
The rule applicable to this class of cases is: ; Urian v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 310 Pa. 342, 165 A. 388. In this statement of the rule, whether death occurred from accidental means is to be determined not by the fact that death resulted but by the nature of the acts in the light of the attending circumstances. A means is not accidental if intentional even though it produces an unintended result. There must be some occurrence in addition to the voluntary act, something unforeseen, unexpected or unusual, which produces the injury before recovery can be had. Thus, there can be no recovery under an accident policy, such as this, following death from hypersensitivity to anaesthetics, administered in the usual way. Hesse v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 299 Pa. 125, 149 A. 96; Adams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 136 Pa.Super. 454, 7 A.2d 544. And ordinarily, death following an assault provoked by the assured is not from accidental means, (Annotation, 4 A. L. R. 723; Couch on Insurance, § 1158) though under some circumstances the case may be for the jury. Camp v. Prud. Ins. Co. of A., 107 Pa.Super. 342, 163 A. 320; Erb v. Commercial M. Acc. Co., 232 Pa. 215, 81 A. 207; Goldsboro v. Loyal Protec. Co., 93 Pa.Super. 583.
Plaintiff is not barred in this case merely because deceased was negligent, for the policy does not except from the risk injury or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.
...a two-lane rural road late at night and was killed when a car drove over that line as it passed by. In Kinavey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (1942) 149 Pa.Super. 568, 27 A.2d 286, the insured, while intoxicated, showed off to friends by performing stunts on a narrow ledge outside the gu......
-
Ward v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...14 S.E.2d 182, 183-184(2); Carolina Life Ins. Co. v. Young, 99 Ga.App. 848, 110 S.E.2d 67, 71. See also Kinavey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 149 Pa.Super. 568, 27 A.2d 286, 288; McGuire v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 164 Tenn. 32, 46 S.W.2d 53, 54; Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 155 Io......
-
Beckham v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...Zuliskey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 159 Pa.Super. 363, 48 A.2d 141 (1946) (jumping out of moving automobile); Kinavey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 149 Pa.Super. 568, 27 A.2d 286 (1942) (falling off bridge while doing stunts in intoxicated state); Trau v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. 98 Pa.Super. 89 (193......
-
Beckham v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...v. Brotherhood Accident Co., 85 Pa.Super. 398; Trau v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co. of New York, supra; Kinavey v. Prudential Insurance Co., 149 Pa.Super. 568, 27 A.2d 286; McCarron v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 156 Pa.Super. 287, 40 A.2d 118; Zuliskey v. Prudential Insuran......