Williams v. United States Mut. Acc. Ass'n of City of New York

• Citation: 31 N.E. 222,133 N.Y. 366
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ASS'N OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
• Decision Date: 24 May 1892
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

133 N.Y. 366

31 N.E. 222

WILLIAMS

v.UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ASS'N OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 24, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.

Action by Frances E. Williams against the United States Mutual Accident Association of the city of New York on an accident insurance policy issued by defendant to her husband, Alonzo C. Williams. From a judgment of the general term, (14 N. Y. Supp. 728,) affirming a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

FINCH and MAYNARD, JJ., dissenting. 14 N. Y. Supp. 728, reversed.

Winsor B. French, (Richard L. Hand, of counsel,) for appellant.

Pond, Brackett & Butler,(Edgar T. Brackett, of counsel,) for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The present action was brought to recover the amount of insurance in a policy issued by the defendant, wherein it was agreed that the sum of $5,000 should be paid to the plaintiff, the wife of an insured member, if death should result to him from bodily injuries effected through external, violent, and accidental means. The policy provided, however, that its issuance and acceptance were subject to certain conditions, among which were the following, namely, that the insurance should not ‘extend to or cover * * * suicide, felonious or otherwise, sane or insane; * * * voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger,’ etc. The assured was struck by an engine, and died shortly afterwards from the effects of his injuries. The circumstances of the occurrence were undisputed. The deceased was by occupation a book peddler and lived at Saratoga Springs. Upon an evening in the latter part of November, 1890, he was walking, and crossed from the west side of the railroad at Church street, where the line of the road runs northerly and southerly, and continued from the track eastwardly along Church street. When about 100 feet from the track he met with two Germans, one of whom testified that they were addressed with the remark: ‘Boys, look out for the engine; may be he will catch you.’ One of the men replied, ‘I'm not afraid. My life is insured.’ A train was at the time approaching in the distance. The Germans continued on their way westwardly and over the track. From what was further testified concerning the movements of the deceased, it appears that he must have turned and retraced his steps; for the engineer of the approaching locomotive saw him coming west to wards the track, and, when within a few feet of the crossing, standing still. The train was moving only at about the rate of four miles an hour. The whistle was being blown and the bell rung; but when within about 25 feet of the crossing the engineer saw the man start, and go upon the track. He says that if the man had kept on walking he could in all probability have gone across, but when upon the track he ‘squatted down’ as in the position of kneeling. The engineer, when he saw this, at once reversed his engine, and, after it had stopped, got down, went to the man, and found him lying against the pilot of the engine. Others came up, brought to the spot by the cry which the deceased uttered when struck; but the only evidence of what occurred immediately before and at the time he was struck was furnished by the engineer. The locality was lighted up by an electric light, and the crossing does not appear to have been out of order. The deceased only had an umbrella in one hand and his canvassing book in the other.

Upon these facts the plaintiff (respondent here) insisted and insists that it was for the jury to pronounce whether the acts of the deceased were with suicidal intent, or whether he was not at the time excusably engaged in an endeavor to follow the Germans, and to save them from possible injury by the approaching train. The plaintiff'...