#### JOHN W. KELLEY v. LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE.

(Filed 26 April, 1933.)

Insurance ÍÍ a — Evidence failed to show that insured was injured by collision while riding in truck, and nonsuit was proper.

A policy providing for liability if the insured is injured “by collision or accident to . . . any motor driven truck” in which insured was riding, and requiring that there should be some external or visible injury to the vehicle, will not warrant a recovery where plaintiff’s evidence tends only to show that his hand was crushed between the side of a truck and a frigidaire loaded therein when the frigidaire slid across the truck body when the truck was driven rapidly around a curve.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Black:, J.,*at January Term, 1933, of Gtuileoed.

Affirmed.

The plaintiff brought suit on a life and casualty policy of insurance to recover damages for the loss of a hand.

By permission of the driver of a large six-wheel truck the plaintiff got into the body of the truck to ride from North Street in Greensboro to White Oak. There was no convenient place for sitting and he stood about midway near a frigidaire and some other articles that had been put in the truck for transportation. Turning from Lindsay Street into Chestnut Street the driver, in the words of the plaintiff, “Turned awful short at a fast rate of speed, and it caused the body of the truck to give and shove the frigidaire and caught my hand between the truck body and the frigidaire. The truck started at such speed and force and caused the frigidaire to move and caught my hand between the frigidaire and the truck body. It skidded over against my hand. The best I know it cut the first three fingers out, and as a result the doctor had to take my hand off. The frigidaire weighed 500 pounds. ... I was over against the wall when it struck my hand. It slung me over against the wall. I did not stop the truck. After my hand was hurt I hollered. There was a noise and I could not make the driver hear. Two walls, *595tbe truck body wall and tbe cab wall, were between tbe driver and me. I jumped out of tbe truck and went to tbe Wesley-Long Hospital. I don’t know whether or not tbe truck struck anything at tbe time it turned tbe corner. I could not see; I was in tbe back. I did not see tbe truck any more after tbe injury.”

At tbe close of plaintiff’s testimony, be being tbe only witness, tbe court dismissed tbe action as in case of nonsuit, and tbe plaintiff appealed.

*William D. Oom&r for plaintiff.*

*A. C. Davis for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe policy insures tbe plaintiff against tbe result of bodily injuries received while it is in force and effected solely by external, violent, and accidental means “by collision of or any accident to . . . any motor driven truck inside of which tbe insured was riding or driving; . . . provided, that in all cases referred to in this paragraph there shall be some external or visible injury on tbe said vehicle or elevator of tbe collision or accident.”

Tbe trial court was correct in bolding that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff does not bring bis case within tbe terms of tbe policy. There was neither such collision or accident nor such external or visible injury to tbe truck as comes within tbe contemplation of the parties to tbe contract. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.