Stanton v. Travelers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1910
• Citation: 78 A. 317,83 Conn. 708
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STANTON v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

78 A. 317

83 Conn. 708

STANTON

v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 16, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Action by James J. Stanton against the Travelers' Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Edwin K. Nicholson, for appellant.

William Bro Smith and Robert C. Dickenson, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. Thomas Francis Stanton on the 23d day of January, 1905, received a policy of insurance from the defendant company, which insured him in the sum of $5,000 against death resulting from bodily injuries effected directly and independently of all other causes, through external, violent, and accidental means. The plaintiff was named in the policy as the beneficiary in case of death. This contract of insurance was for one year, and was so renewed that it was in force in the months of April and May, 1908. The trial court has found that on May 1, 1908, the insured was a practicing physician in the city of Bridgeport, and was 41 years of age. Some time in the fall of 1907 he had an attack of appendicitis, for which no operation was performed. After this attack, and prior to the attack hereinafter described, he appeared to be in excellent health, strong and rugged. His general health, except as herein stated, had always been excellent. Friday afternoon, May 1, 1908, Dr. Stanton was working in the garden in the rear of his house, aud was engaged in carrying baskets of soil from one part of the garden to another. He carried the basket with both hands, resting it against his abdomen. After so working for quite a length of time, he entered the house and complained that he felt weak, and felt as if he had strained himself. He was pale and in a cold sweat, and took a drink of hot tea and a warm bath and went to bed. On Saturday morning, May 2, 1908, the doctor complained that he was not feeling well, and while out making a call was given stimulants by the nurse at the home of the patient upon whom he was calling. He appeared at that time pale and seriously ill, and went home and immediately went to bed. On Sunday, May 3, 1908, physicians were called, they held a consultation, and decided that he was suffering from appendicitis. On Monday, May 4, 1908, he was removed to a private hospital and an operation performed, and it was found that be was suffering from appendicitis. The appendix was removed in this operation, and on May 7, 1908, he died of appendicitis. The appendix at the time of the removal was gangrenous, perforated in three places, and contained a calculus of fœcal concretion about the size of a small pea. The first attack in the fall of 1907, because of adhesions and conditions created by it, left the appendix in an abnormal condition, and made it susceptible to other attacks arising from a straining of that portion of the body. The attack of May, 1908, arose from the strain caused by carrying the baskets of soil described herein. Such attack would not have occurred from such strain, except for the conditions created by the first attack in the fall of 1907. Upon this state of facts the plaintiff claimed that Dr. Stanton's death was due to violent and accidental means, independent of all other causes, within the meaning of the policy. The trial court overruled this claim, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The sole ground of the appeal is based upon this ruling.

The policy now before us in plain language insures against bodily injury, effected directly and independently of all other causes, through external, violent, and accidental means. Similar policies have been before both the state and federal courts, and the consensus of opinion is that, if an injury and an existing bodily disease or infirmity concur and cooperate to that end, no liability...