Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1898-09-02
THE b. A. CLARK CASE.
supreme Courts Ground for Reversing
Decision OF the Lower Court.
From Evening phonix Of Friday


Waterman, Martin ~ Hit and lIaskins,
counsel for the estate Of Btrna A. Clark
in the suit to recover $4,000 accident in
surance from the Employers Liability
company, have received a copy of the SUI
preme courts opinion reversing the finding
of the county court and ordering a new
trial. The case is reversed upon two points
stated in the opinion, both of which are
based upon the refusal of the court (Judge
Starl) to comply with certain requests of
the defendant to charge the jury. The
declaration of the plaintiff in his writ
alleged that Mr.. Clark "was accidentally
cast or thrown upon the ground by his
team so that the back of his head near
the base of his brain struck on the hard
earth or stone with great force and the
wheels of his heavily loaded wagon passed
across his neck and chest SO thatby means
of said accidental bodily injuries solely,
and from no other cause, his death was
then and there caused
The def ndant insurance company two
| requests, which re.a.ed to this matter,
were that the court instruct the jury
that the plaintiff must prove that the
! insured came to his death solely
through external violent and acct
! dental means, and from bodily injuries
/ alone, received in the particular manner
! and upon the particular parts set forth in
the declarations" and "that the plaintiff
cannot recover if the Jury find that the in
sured came to the ground in any other
way than 10y being cast or thrown there 10y
his team although they find that his death
was thereafter caused by his wagon run
ming over him
The count charged the jury as follows
upon the subject matter OF these requests:
III he came to his death from an rXter-
nal violent accident, and if that accident
produced this rup,ure-jf there was an ac-
cdental injury which was the direct cause
of his DEATH why then that part of the
plaintiffs case is made out. But if the
plintiff has failed to satisfy YOU 10y the
measure of proof have indicated, why
then she cannot recover
The supreme court holds in substance
that the defendant was entitled to a charge
to the jury that it must be proved that
death was not due indirectly to disease.
The second point of the defendants con-
tention was that the policy provided that
no recovery coul be had unless the death
was caused by accident and not directly OF
indirectly by disease or bodily intirmity
The defendant requested a charge that the
plaintiff could not recover even if the dealt
was found to have been caused by acct
dent, it it was also found that disease OF
bodily nfirmity contributed in any degree
thereto. The court charged the Jury tina
/ in order for the plaintin to recover, tn,
Jury must find that Mr. Clark died solely
of injuries received by the accident anC
that the planttt must show that an acct
dental injury was the sole caase of death
and that the plaintiff could not recover i
the death was caused solely or in part b!
disease or bodily injury.
The distinction made by the supreme
court seems a slight one, and is not easil,
apparent to the non-legll mind