Landau v. Travelers Insurance Company

• Citation: 267 S.W. 376,305 Mo. 563
• Decision Date: 18 December 1924
• Docket Number: 23290
• Parties: AMELIA C. LANDAU, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

267 S.W. 376

305 Mo. 563

AMELIA C. LANDAU, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 23290

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 18, 1924

Motion for Rehearing Denied December 18, 1924.

Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; Hon. Edgar B. Woolfolk Judge.

Affirmed.

John L. Burns, D. E. Killam and Abbott, Fauntleroy Cullen & Edwards for appellant.

(1) The court erred in holding that the deceased could not recover on account of voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Randolph, 78 F. 754; Bateman v. Insurance Co., 110 Mo.App. 452; Smith v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 56 L. R. A. 273. (2) The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was insufficient to make an issue for the jury that deceased took his own life. It did not exclude with reasonable certainty every other hypothesis. Reynolds v. Casualty Company, 274 Mo 96; Griffith v. Casualty Co., 290 Mo. 455. (3) The court erred in excluding declarations of the deceased made immediately after the fall. Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wallace 403; Halem v. Stove, 54 Mo. 96; Greenley v. Casualty Co., 192 Mo.App. 308. (4) The words "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger" imply a conscious, intentional exposure -- something of which one is consciously willing to take the risk, the danger being known or apparent. Ashenfelter v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 87 F. 682, 31 C. C. A. 193; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph, 78 F. 754, 21 C. C. A. 305; Equitable Acc. Ins. Co. v. Osborn, 90 Ala. 201, 13 L. R. A. 267; Fidelity Co. v. Sittig, 181 Ill. 111, 48 L. R. A. 359 (Aff. 79 Ill.App. 245); Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Assn. v. Springsteen, 23 Ind.App. 657; Conboy v. Railway Officials' Acc. Assn., 17 Ind. 62, 60 Am. St. 154, and note; Correll v. National Acc. Soc., 139 Iowa 36, 130 Am. St. 294, and note; Matthes v. Imperial Acc. Assoc., 110 Iowa 222; Jones v. U.S. Mutual Acc. Assn., 92 Iowa 652; Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Anderson, 5 Kan.App. 18; Campbell v. Fidelity Co., 109 Ky. 661; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Clark, 109 Ky. 350, 95 Am. St. 374, and note; Keene v. New England Mut. Acc. Assn., 161 Mass. 149; Tuttle v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 134 Mass. 175, 45 Am. Rep. 316; Hunt v. U.S. Accident Ins. Co., 146 Mich. 521, 117 Am. St. 655, and note, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 938, 10 Ann. Cas. 449; Johnson v. London Guarantee Co., 115 Mich. 86, 69 Am. St. 549, and note, 40 L. R. A. 440; Price v. Standard L. Ins. Co., 92 Minn. 238; Dillon v. Continental Casualty Co., 130 Mo.App. 502; Bateman v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 110 Mo.App. 443; Jamison v. Continental Casualty Co., 104 Mo.App. 306; Collins v. Fidelity Co., 63 Mo.App. 253; Whalen v. Peerless Casualty Co., 75 N.H. 297, 139 Am. St. 695 and note; Thomas v. Masons' Fraternal Acc. Assoc., 64 A.D. 22, 71 N.Y.S. 692; Lehman v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 7 A.D. 424, 39 N.Y.S. 912 (Aff. 158 N.Y. 689); Duncan v. Preferred Mut. Acc. Assn., 59 N.Y.S. 145, 13 N.Y.S. 630 (Aff. 129 N.Y. 622); Cornwell v. Fraternal Acc. Assoc., 6 N.D. 201, 66 Am. St. 601, 40 L. R. A. 437; U.S. Mutual Acc. Assn. v. Hubbell, 56 Oh. St. 516, 40 L. R. A. 453; DeLoy v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 171 Pa. 1, 50 Am. St. 787; Burkhard v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 102 Pa. 262, 48 Am. Rep. 205; Biehl v. General Acc. Assur. Corp., 38 Pa. Sup. 110; Rebman v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 217 Pa. 518, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 957 and note; Carpenter v. American Acc. Co., 46 S.C. 541; Union Casualty Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 591, 60 Am. St. 873; Miller v. American Mut. Acc. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167, 20 L. R. A. 765; Fidelity Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138, 40 L. R. A. 432; Beard v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 65 W.Va. 283; Bakalars v. Continental Casualty Co., 141 Wis. 43, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1241, 18 Ann. Cas. 1123 and note; Schneiderer v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 58 Wis. 13, 46 Am. Rep. 618; Pierce v. Travelers' L. Ins. Co., 34 Wis. 389; Manufacturers' Acc. Indem. Co. v. Dorgan, 58 F. 945, 7 C. C. A. 581; Badenfeld v. Massachusetts Mut. Acc. Assn., 154 Mass. 77, 13 L. R. A. 263 and note; Anthony v. Mercantile Mut. Acc. Assn., 162 Mass. 354, 357, 26 L. R. A. 406, 44 Am. St. 367; Williams v. U.S. Mutual Acc. Assn., 133 N.Y. 366; Equitable Acc. Ins. Co. c. Osborn, 90 Ala. 201, 13 L. R. A. 267; Whalen v. Peerless Casualty Co., 75 N.H. 297, 298, 139 Am. St. 695 and note; Fidelity Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138, 40 L. R. A. 432; Carpenter v. American Acc. Co., 46 S.C. 541; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Jones, 80 Ga. 541, 12 Am. St. 270; Slaughter v. Huntington, 64 W.Va. 237; Reidel v. Wheeling Tract Co., 63 W.Va. 522, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1123; Van Pelt v. Clarksburg, 42 W.Va. 218; Hesser v. Grafton, 33 W.Va. 548; Moore v. Huntington, 31 W.Va. 842; Phillips v. Ritchie County Ct., 31 W.Va. 477; Mannon v. Camden Interstate Railroad Co., 56 W.Va. 554; Travelers' Ins. Co v. Seaver, 19 Wall. (U.S.) 531, 22 L.Ed. 155; Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co., 65 W.Va. 170, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 779 and note; National L. Co. v. Lokey, 166 Ala. 174. (5) There is a clear distinction between a voluntary act and a voluntary exposure to danger; and, although hidden, unknown or unexpected danger may exist, the exposure thereto without any knowledge thereof does not constitute a voluntary exposure, although the act may be voluntary. Equitable Acc. Ins. Co. v. Osborn, 90 Ala. 201, 13 L. R. A. 267; Fidelity Co. v. Sittig, 181 Ill. 111, 48 L. R. A. 359; Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Assn. v. Springsteen, 23 Ind.App. 657; Conboy v. Railway Officials' Employees' Acc. Assn., 17 Ind.App. 62, 60 Am. St. 154; Payne v. Fraternal Acc. Assn., 119 Iowa 342; Collins v. Bankers' Acc. Ins. Co., 96 Iowa 216, 59 Am. St. 367; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Blark, 109 Ky. 350, 22 Ky. L. 902, 95 Am. St. 374; Collins v. Fidelity, Co., 63 Mo.App. 253; Cornwell v. Fraternal Acc. Assn., 6 N.D. 201, 66 Am. St. 601, 40 L. R. A. 437; De Loy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 171 Pa. 1, 50 Am. St. 787; Burkhard v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 Pa 262, 48 Am. Rep. 205; Miller v. American Mut. Acc. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167, 20 L. R. A. 765; Continental Casualty Co. v. Jennings, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 14; Fidelity Co. v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138, 40 L. R. A. 432 and note; Bakalars v. Casualty Co., 141 Wis. 43, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1241; McNevin v. Canadian R. Acc. Ins. Co., 32 Ont. 284.

Creech & Penn and Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert for respondent.

(1) The burden rested with the plaintiff to prove accidental death. Brunswick v. Ins. Co., 278 Mo. 165; Griffith v. Casualty Co., 290 Mo. 455; Laessig v. Ins. Co., 169 Mo. 280; United States Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Blum, 270 F. 946; Taylor v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 110 Iowa 621; Whitlach v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 149 N.Y. 45; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Weise, 182 Ill. 496; Carnes v. Traveling Men's Assn., 106 Iowa 281; Merritt v. Acc. Assn., 98 Mich. 338. (2) The facts showed suicide as a matter of law. Brunswick v. Ins. Co., 278 Mo. 173. (3) If an accidental fall is assumed, then the insured voluntarily exposed himself to unnecessary danger. Meadows v. Ins. Co., 129 Mo. 89; Overbeck v. Ins. Co., 94 Mo.App. 453; Bean v. Assurance Corporation, 50 Mo.App. 459; Alter v. Casualty Co., 108 Mo.App. 169; Jamison v. Casualty Co., 104 Mo.App. 313; Dillon v. Casualty Co., 130 Mo.App. 507; Rebman v. General Accident Ins. Co., 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 959; Diddle v. Casualty Co., 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 789. (4) There was either suicide or voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, and hence a directed verdict was demanded. Williams v. Accident Assn., 133 N.Y. 369. (5) The statements of the insured, after his fall, in response to questions, were mere narrative, and no part of the res gestae. Barker v. Ins. Co., 126 Mo. 148; Ruschenberg v. Southern Electric Co., 161 Mo. 79; Koenig v. Railway Co., 173 Mo. 721; Redman v. Railway Co., 185 Mo. 11; Hill v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 150 N.C. 1; Railway Co. v. Pearson, 97 Ala. 111; Railway Co. v. Becker, 128 Ill. 545.

Ragland, J. Graves, C. J., and Woodson, David E. Blair, and White JJ., concur; James T. Blair, J., concurs in result only.

OPINION

RAGLAND

This is a suit on a policy of accident insurance. The appeal in this case and that in the case of Landau v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, 305 Mo. 542, decided at this term, were argued and submitted together. While the issues were slightly different in the two cases, the evidence in each discloses subtantially the same state of facts.

As the ground of defendant's liability under the provisions of the policy the petition alleged:

"That the death of the said Morris Rich occurred on or about the 9th day of June, 1919, and resulted solely from bodily injuries effected directly and independently of all other causes through external, violent and accidental means, to-wit:

"The insured was engaged in riding upon a Creve Coeur Lake street car, returning from the lake to the city of St. Louis, at a point about one and one-half miles east of the lake, when and where he attempted to change his seat on the car and stepped into the side passageway of said car, and while being in and upon said passageway and in the act of going from one part of the car to another for that purpose, he accidentally fell from the car, which resulted in the following bodily injuries, to-wit: Badly crushed leg and severe nervous shock and loss of blood, which caused the death of the insured on said 9th day of June A. D. 1919."

The answer denied that the insured's death was effected through accidental means, but averred that on the contrary it was the result of suicide. An affirmative defense, based on a provision of the policy, was also pleaded, to the effect that the insured's injury and death resulted from voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger.

The jury found the issues for plaintiff and returned a verdict accordingly. On defendant's motion the verdict was set aside and a new trial granted. From the order granting a...