Court Opinion

ID: 9651532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:24:34.806503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:34.982968
License: Public Domain

Haneman, J.
(dissenting). As I understand the test in the majority opinion it is different from the Cardozo test which is that an accidental result almost automatically imports that the means were accidental. The Linden-Harris test is reaffirmed with the appendage of the provision that the facta of the accidental (unexpected and unforeseen) result must be employed as a backdrop for the events which precede the injury, and must be considered together with such antecedent facts in determining whether the injury was caused by accidental means. The basic test of “accidental means”, however, remains ■ the necessity for the occurrence of something unforeseen, unexpected or unusual in the acts *129or events preceding the injury. Ordinarily this would make the solution of that query a jury question. However, there will of necessity arise cases where the “average policyholder” could not reasonably reach a conclusion of coverage, in which event the question is one of law. If this is the conclusion of the majority, I am in accord. I can think of no fairer approach to the solution of a problem which involves such a morass of possible factual complexes. Even a casual projection of a few hypothetical cases demonstrates the near impossibility of articulating an equally fair standard.
Here, however, I see nothing that would warrant the average policyholder in reasonably concluding that the injury was caused by accidental means. The deceased, deliberately and intentionally tilted the cabinet to rest upon his abdomen. As far as appears, the cabinet was eased to that position — exactly as deceased intended, without any slipping or sharp contact. There were no cuts, bruises or other evidence of a trauma on the skin surface. The traumatic incident referred to was the rupture of the bowel, i. e., the result of plaintiff’s voluntary act. Accordingly, even though a jury viewed the events which preceded the injury in the light of the result, as above suggested, they could not reasonably conclude that the injury was caused by accidental means.
I would affirm.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor and Hall — 5.
For affirmance — Justice Haneman — 1.