Cobb v. Preferred Mutual Accident Ass'n

22 S.E. 976, 96 Ga. 818
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 5, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 22 S.E. 976 (Cobb v. Preferred Mutual Accident Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cobb v. Preferred Mutual Accident Ass'n, 22 S.E. 976, 96 Ga. 818 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where an accident insurance policy insured the person to whom it was issued “ against bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means,” and on the trial of an action thereon, predicated upon the loss of an eye, it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff, while in an emaciated and feeble condition, after safely alighting from a train, carried [819]*819his baggage, weighing from sixty to eighty pounds, a distance of about fifty yards and “injured himself in some way or other” in so doing, so that soon after putting the baggage down a defect in the vision of one of his eyes became" apparent, which finally resulted in a total loss of sight as to that eye; and it also appeared that the plaintiff had not fallen, nor received a blow, or jar, or shock of any kind, and that there was nothing unusual in his manner of carrying the baggage or in his locomotion while so doing, no case for a recovery was made. Even ¡if the plaintiff’s injury was attributable to the carrying of the baggage, it was not effected by “external,” “violent” or “accidental” means in the sense in which these words are used in the policy.

August 5, 1895. Action on insurance policy. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. October term, 1894. C. J. Thornton, for plaintiff. G-oetchius & Chappell, for defendant.

2. Without regard to other questions made in the record, the judgment of nonsuit was, for the reasons above indicated, rightly rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. National Life & Accident Insurance
202 S.E.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Continental Assurance Co. v. Rothell
176 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Davison v. National Life & Accident Insurance
126 S.E.2d 811 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Johnson v. National Life & Accident Insurance Co.
90 S.E.2d 36 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Cramer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
13 A.2d 651 (Atlantic County Circuit Court, N.J., 1940)
American National Insurance v. Chappelear
181 S.E. 808 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Griswold v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
180 A. 649 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1935)
Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club
260 N.W. 130 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Rucker
179 S.E. 269 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Trau v. Preferred Accid. Ins. Co.
98 Pa. Super. 89 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Dondeneau v. State Industrial Accident Commission
249 P. 820 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Carswell v. Railway Mail Ass'n
8 F.2d 612 (Fifth Circuit, 1925)
Carter v. Standard Acc. Ins.
238 P. 259 (Utah Supreme Court, 1925)
Caldwell v. Travelers Insurance Co.
267 S.W. 907 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
Johnson v. Ætna Life Insurance
101 S.E. 134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Salinger v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
198 S.W. 1163 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Fulton v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance
91 S.E. 228 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Rock v. Travelers' Insurance Co.
156 P. 1029 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Stone v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
133 Tenn. 672 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1915)
Semancik v. Continental Casualty Co.
56 Pa. Super. 392 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.E. 976, 96 Ga. 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-preferred-mutual-accident-assn-ga-1895.