Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-04-24

Scayer ~ the Travellers Insurance Company.
We notice some very incomplete, and in
some respects Inaccurate, reports OF this
case. recently decided by the United States
Supreme Court, and liSelY to be famous
among life insurance cases. The facts OF
the case. a. We understand them, were as
follows: John Il Scaver was 4 livery
stable keeper. who had insirei his life for
50 600 in the Travellers Insurance Company
of Hartford. lie was killed some seven
wears ago while driving fast horse in
trotting match, for a $50 purse, on the
trottius course in Morrisville. L.moille
county. Vt, 10y collision of trotting
sulkics, in which lie jumped or was thrown
FROM his ~4iky. wa dragged several rods by
being cntan.lcd in the lines, and died in
,hir5y->ix hours after, from his injuries.
lis wifeln duc time brought suit for the
amount or his lie Insurance, the insurance
company resisting on the ground that
Seaver was engaged in Hazardous occupa-
ton. not incident 10 liz business, not in
surod against at any price, and excepted in
the policy. which provided that the insur-
ance should not extend to death or injury
caused by any breach of the law, or by the
ASSURED 'vi!lully exposing himself to any
unnecessary peril" 1t further appeared
that horse racing Tor money was violation
Of our State law. The suit was brought in
the United States District Court, and under
Judge Smalley rulings the jury found a YER
diet against the company. Exceptions were
taken to the United States Circuit Court and
Judse Woodruff sent the case back for a
new trial, in which the jury again found
against the insurance company, Judge
Sma.ley ruling that while the trotting
match was violation of the law, if the
Jury should find that Seaver's death was
occa.iJned by the reckless driving of his
competitor, Gilman, in violation of the rules
Of the race, then the death was not caused
by the race but by the conduct Of
Gilman; that whether the driving Of
the race was a willul exposure TO unneces-
HAIN perm Wa AtA AllI Jul ~ AANANA AAAAAAN q"
and that the question was not what con-
struction would be given to the language
90 the policy at Hartford, but in view Of all
the circumstances whether intelligent, fair
minded people IN the vicinity Of the in
sured, where the contract vas made. would
regard it a. excluding the driving Of such a
race" The case was then appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States, and
was argued before that court by Hon. f. j.
Phelps a. counsel for tie insurance com
pany. Mr. Phelps argued that Judge
Smalley's distinction between an accident
resulting from Z race and an accident re-
sultlng from the care.c-sue~- Of driver at a
race. could not he sustained; that it was
raciuq for noH,y that ooca-ionod Seayer :
death and that he los; his life by volun-
tarily engaging in an illegal act, and by a
wilful exposure of himself to an unnecessary
danger. all within the meaning of the
policy: aud that the construction OF the
policy depended on it, plain language, and
not on the question whether intelligent,
fair minded people in the vicinity Of the
insured where the contract vas made, would
regard it a. excluding the driving Of such 4
race
The supreme Court. in a recent decision.
reversed the verdict, below. and decided in
favor Of the insurance company, in a de-
ci,ion. brief abstract of which Is a fol-
lows:
The main questions in this case were
whether TIE court below erred in instruct
ing the jury that the driving Of a race.
when regarded a. an exposure Of the life Of
the insured to an unnecessary peril, was to
DE considered in the light in which fair
minded people of the community looked
upon it. and if. under the ordinary regu-
lati1n> OF such matches. such tair-minded
people would not regard the driving of the
match a within the provisions ola life
policy against such exposure, then the rep
re~eutatlve- Of the insured. who was injur-
ei while 80 driving, could recover and
whtther it was error for the court to in
~truct the Jury that. If the insured was
killed by the reckless driving of his com
pctitJr and NOT by the ordinary mischance
Of the re &c then there should be a recovery.
Il J. held that the court erred in both in
stance, that the question Of wilful exposure
Wa for the jury, after all the facts were
before them and that, if the intentions of
the competitor Of the insured were as bad
~ the charge of the court implied, and the
reckless driving was for the purpose of win
niug the race ut all hazards, still the facr
did not take the case out of the clause f
the policy again>: wilful exposure. 1t as
against just such danger the company had
intended to protect it~e.i."