Thalassinos v. Massachusetts Accident Co.

149 A. 512, 84 N.H. 261, 1930 N.H. LEXIS 74
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 4, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 A. 512 (Thalassinos v. Massachusetts Accident Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thalassinos v. Massachusetts Accident Co., 149 A. 512, 84 N.H. 261, 1930 N.H. LEXIS 74 (N.H. 1930).

Opinion

Peaslee, C. J.

The declaration states a case. All of the three elements stipulated in the policy are alleged. The means were external; the cause came from without. Application of sufficient heat to cause severe burns can hardly be deemed to be other than violent. And the happening was accidental. The physician intended to apply a proper amount of heat only. Through his negligence he made an excessive application. This is as much an accident as though he had carelessly dropped a red hot iron upon his patient.

It is not even necessary to invoke the rule of construction which has here been applied to fire insurance policies (Watson v. Insurance Co., 83 N. H. 200), and which is equally applicable to those insuring against accident (Lewis v. Corporation, 224 N. Y. 18). Upon any rational interpretation of the terms used to describe the risks insured against, the policy covered the plaintiff’s misadventure.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Related

Cramer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
13 A.2d 651 (Atlantic County Circuit Court, N.J., 1940)
Arnstein v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
196 A. 491 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 A. 512, 84 N.H. 261, 1930 N.H. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thalassinos-v-massachusetts-accident-co-nh-1930.