Case Name: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Mrs. W. C. Rochester et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-04-07
Citations: 115 Tex. 404
Docket Number: Application No. 14585
Parties: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Mrs. W. C. Rochester et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Mrs. W. C. Rochester et al.
Application No. 14585.
Decided April 7, 1926.
(283 S. W., 135.)
Seay, Seay, Malone & Lipscomb; and Wantland, Glasgow & Dickey, for petitioner.
Where at the conclusion of the testimony the undisputed evidence showed that the death of the deceased was the result of an act of God, to-wit: a stroke of lightning, and further showed that at the time of his death the deceased was not engaged in the performance of duties which subjected him to a greater hazard from said act of God than ordinarily applied to the general public, it was reversible error to refuse this plaintiff of error’s request for a peremptory instruction in its favor. Marshburn v. Stewart, 256 S. W., 575; Payne v. Harris, 241 S. W., 1008; Guisti v. Galveston Tribune, 105 Texas, 497, 152 S. W., 167; Texas Employers Ins. Assn. v. Downing, 218 S. W., 112; Gulf, etc., R. R. Co. v. State, 72 Texas, 404, 10 S. W., 81; Miller & Co. v. Texas, etc., R. R. Co., 83 Texas, 518, 18 S. W., 594; Rainey & Hamon v. Hamilton & White, 234 S. W., 229; Emmich v. Hanrahan Brick & Ice Co., 201 N. Y. S., 638; Wiggins v. Industrial Accident Board, 170 Pac., 9; Chiulla de Luca v. Board of Park Commissioners, 107 Atl., 611; Madura v. Bronx Parkway Commission, 144 N. E., 505; State on Relation of Peoples Coal & Ice Co. v. District Court, Ramsey County, 153 N. W., 119; Andrew v. Failsworth I. Society, 2 K. B., 32, 90 L. P., 611; State Road Commission v. Industrial Comm. of Utah, 190 Pac., 544; Klawinski v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 152 N. W., 213; Griffith v. Cole Bros., 165 N. W., 577, L. R. A., 1918F, 923; Kelley v. Kerry County Council, 13 B. W. C. C., 194; Thier v. Widdifield, 178 N. W., 16; Hoenig v. Industrial Commission, 150 N. W., 996.
E. W. Napier, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
This case was rightly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals under the principle announced in the opinion of this court in the case of Cassell et al. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, this day determined.