{ "id": 2219620, "name": "EDNA M. SCARBOROUGH v. WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Scarborough v. World Insurance", "decision_date": "1956-09-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "502", "last_page": "506", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "244 N.C. 502" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "185 S.E. 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 Va. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1961628 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/166/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11255136 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.W. 2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 Va. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1963573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/165/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599332 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8597858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 S.E. 2d 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11299884 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0148-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 579, "char_count": 11203, "ocr_confidence": 0.588, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.423883501414404e-07, "percentile": 0.9205917024506062 }, "sha256": "639e7e5e986ff64b07a9826087e3335e45b1e6b9d27ba298157cc8bc514eda69", "simhash": "1:5f2bd5c2022ca692", "word_count": 2001 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Johnson, J., not sitting." ], "parties": [ "EDNA M. SCARBOROUGH v. WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Devin, J.\nThe policy issued to Adrian C. Midgett by the defendant insured against loss of life resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries sustained through purely accidental means. It was not controverted that the death of the insured resulted from an altercation with the witness Baldwin. From the testimony of this witness, who was the sole witness to the occurrence offered by the plaintiff, the conclusion seems inescapable that the insured was the aggressor; that he used the language of vituperation and fury and demonstrated an attempt to do violence to the person of the witness; that he advanced with arms raised up the steps of Baldwin\u2019s home in such a manner as to put Baldwin in fear, so much so that Baldwin was caused to push him away to protect himself and his home, and then to retreat within doors.\nThe policy sued on insured against loss of life resulting from bodily injuries sustained through accidental means. In Fletcher v. Trust Co., 220 N.C. 148, 16 S.E. 2d 687, Barnhill, J., drew the distinction between \u201caccidental\u201d and \u201caccidental means\u201d as these terms are used in accident insurance policies, and pointed out that the phrase \u201caccidental means\u201d refers to the occurrence or happening which produces the result rather than the result. Scott v. Ins. Co., 208 N.C. 160, 179 S.E. 434; Kirkley v. Ins. Co., 232 N.C. 292, 59 S.E. 2d 629; Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Glenn, 165 Va. 283, 182 S.E. 221. See also Michie\u2019s Jurisprudence, Law of Virginia, Insurance Sec. 128; Vance on Insurance, 569.\nWhere the policy insures against loss of life through accidental means, the principle seems generally upheld that if the death of the insured, although in a sense unforeseen and unexpected, results directly from the insured\u2019s voluntary act and aggressive misconduct, or where the insured culpably provokes the act which causes the injury and death, it is not death by accidental means, even though the result may be such as to constitute an accidental injury. 45 C.J.S. 779.\nWhere the insured is the aggressor in a personal encounter and commits an assault upon another with demonstration of violence and knows, or under the circumstances should reasonably anticipate, that he will be in danger of great bodily harm as the natural and probable consequence of his act or course of conduct, his injury or death may not be regarded as caused by accidental means. 45 C.J.S. 827.\nWhere the death of the insured results from an aggressive assault upon another, whether the loss is covered by the terms of the policy insuring against death through accidental means depends on whether the death was the natural and probable consequence of the insured\u2019s aggression, and what is the natural and probable consequence thereof depends on the character of the aggression and the circumstances attending. Podesta v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 150 S.W. 2d 596.\nIt was said by Hoke, J., in Clay v. Ins. Co., 174 N.C. 642, 94 S.E. 289, that \u201cthe true test of liability in cases of that character is whether the insured, being in the wrong, was the aggressor under circumstances that would render a homicide likely as result of his own misconduct.\u201d In that case the insured was killed by a pistol shot while engaged in an affray with another.\nIn Ins. Co. v. Ryder, 166 Va. 446, 185 S.E. 894, it was said: \u201cOne who assaults another or voluntarily enters into an affray and is hurt has not suffered an accident.\u201d\nApplying these principles of law to the uncontradicted evidence in this case, we conclude that the death of the insured Adrian C. Midgettdid not result from bodily injuries sustained through purely accidental means, and hence was not covered by the policy of insurance sued on.\nWe have considered the authorities cited by counsel for the appellee in their brief and the arguments they advance that the death of the insured in the manner described by the witness was not the natural and probable consequence of the conduct of the insured, but we think the character and the extent of the insured's aggression under the circumstances herein fully set out are such as to exclude the concept of death by accidental means within the meaning of the policy.\nThe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit, aptly interposed, should have been allowed.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nReversed.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.", "type": "majority", "author": "Devin, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wallace R. Gray and McCown & McCown for plaintiff, appellee.", "Jack W. Marer, R. C. Andrews, and Worth & Homer for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EDNA M. SCARBOROUGH v. WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 September, 1956.)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 38\u2014\nDeath of insured resulting directly from insured\u2019s voluntary act and aggressive misconduct, or from an act culpably provoked by insured, ordinarily is not death by \u201caccidental means\u201d within the coverage of a policy of insurance, even though the result may be such as to constitute accidental death. The distinction between \u201caccidental\u201d death and death by \u201caccidental means\u201d pointed out.\n2. Same\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that insured was the aggressor and demonstrated an attempt to do violence to the person of the witness, causing the witness to push him away to protect himself and home, that insured fell back and struck his head against a water meter, causing death, does not disclose death from bodily injury sustained through purely accidental means within the coverage of the insurance policy sued on, and nonsuit should have been entered.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, J,, January Term, 1956, of Dare.\nThis was an action to recover on an accident insurance policy issued to Adrian C. Midgett. It was alleged that the death of the insured resulted from an accident within the terms of the policy.\nIt was admitted that the defendant issued its policy whereby it insured Adrian C. Midgett against loss of life \u201cresulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries sustained during any term of this policy through purely accidental means.\u201d\nThe defendant also admitted the death of Adrian C. Midgett while the policy was in force and that plaintiff was the beneficiary named therein, but it alleged that the death of the insured resulted from an altercation with one Herman Lee Baldwin and was the result of his own aggression and hence did not result directly and independently of all other causes through purely accidental means. It was admitted that in the course of the altercation brought on by the wrongful conduct of the insured he was pushed back by Herman Lee Baldwin in the manner and under the circumstances set forth in the deposition of Baldwin and that Midgett\u2019s head came in contact with a water meter, resulting in injuries from which he died ten days thereafter.\nThe only evidence offered by plaintiff, or in the trial, tending to show the circumstances under which the insured sustained the injury resulting in his death was the deposition of Herman Lee Baldwin. This witness testified as follows:\n\u201cI was sitting on the steps of the porch of my house, No. 721 Southampton Avenue in Norfolk, Ya. It is on the south side of the street. There are four steps from the porch of my house to the sidewalk, five including the last one. The sidewalk in front of my house is not paved; it is dirt; on that sidewalk there is a metal water meter or cap; it is pretty good size, about the size of that wastepaper basket or a little larger; about six inches across; it was protruding above the ground and it was near the curb; the street itself was paved.\n\u201cOn this Sunday morning I saw Mr. Adrian C. Midgett while I was sitting on the porch. I didn\u2019t know him at that time and had never seen him as I recall. I was sitting on the porch when he came up. He stopped in front of my house. Mr. Midgett came up and walked up to me and said, \u2018Can I speak to you?\u2019 I said, \u2018Yes, what is it?\u2019 I was sitting there with my hand on my jaw like this (indicating), and he said, \u2018Where can I get a woman and some whiskey?\u2019 He came from the direction of Colley Avenue. I pointed and said, \u2018Go back to the corner and turn to your right and you will probably find what you want up there.\u2019 I said, \u2018There is nobody living through here but colored people and I don\u2019t know anything about anything like that.\u2019 . . . He insisted. I knew. I told him, \u2018I am sorry, fellow, but you have got the wrong fellow. I don\u2019t know anything about anything like that.\u2019 I said, \u2018You wouldn\u2019t like it if a colored man come in a white section .and asked you for a woman and whiskey.\u2019 ... I said, \u2018White people live up there and colored people live in this section. You are in the wrong place.\u2019 From there he started cursing me, got vicious, and called me s.o.b.\u2019s and started towards me. . . . He got up at least three steps. By my sitting down and him rushing to me I didn\u2019t know what he would do. When I got up he was in reach of me. The porch is narrow. It is a two-story apartment. The steps is wide because one section of steps goes downstairs and the other section goes upstairs. I was sitting up against the bannister on my side of the porch where I live. He came within\u2019 reach of me. I really was in fear of bodily harm. He was still advancing on me. The door of my house was immediately back of me and was locked because when I come out and pulled the door to\u2019 it automatically locks. When I stood up he was still advancing on me. That is the reason I stood up. When he got almost to me I just pushed him away from me. He was still advancing when I pushed him. I shoved him\nback. Pie was on the steps and he fell backwards. . . . After I shoved him I got up and . . . went into the house. I just pushed him away from me and he had to go back because he was facing me. If a man is vicious enough to come on you like that you don\u2019t know what he is going to do so I knocked on the door and went upstairs. I didn\u2019t look back but I know he fell. He had to go backwards because he was coming towards me. He weighed over 200 pounds, was a settled man, I would call him, may have been in his early 40\u2019s or late 40\u2019s. He looked strong all right. That is why I was in a hurry to get away from him. He was larger than I am . . . When I shoved him back I was not doing anything other than to protect myself and my home. I had not said anything to him to provoke a fuss, nothing at all. I didn\u2019t curse him. That is one thing I don\u2019t do.\u201d\nThe witness Baldwin further testified: \u201cEvidently he (the insured) was infuriated because he cursed me the way he did. ... He didn\u2019t have his hands down to his side as he came towards me. He came as if he was going to grab me. He had his hands in front of him. ... I don\u2019t know whether he was drinking or not. As he approached me I became scared he might strike me or inflict some bodily harm upon me. Because of that fear I pushed him back. . . . When he started up the steps he started cursing and continued cursing and he came up with his hands raised. ... I went to Police Headquarters. I told them what had happened and I was acquitted.\u201d\nThe court overruled defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nUpon issues submitted the jury returned verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment in accord therewith, the defendant appealed.\nWallace R. Gray and McCown & McCown for plaintiff, appellee.\nJack W. Marer, R. C. Andrews, and Worth & Homer for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0502-01", "first_page_order": 548, "last_page_order": 552 }