In connection with this form of insurance, it is ex ceedingly interesting to note that those who first planned the work were either so skilful or so fortunate as to adopt a series of charges which have furnished a basis for all future work of this kind. Many of the actual charges are still in use altho the benefits under them have been greatly extended.
5. Accident insurance in the United is to James G. Batterson that accident insurance in the United States owes a great deal of its success. Trav eling in England, he purchased a railway accident ticket, and was impressed with the value of the idea.
On returning to the United States he sought, in 1863, and obtained a charter from the legislature of Con necticut. The Travelers Insurance Company had at first a somewhat limited field, charter was amended and it was permitted to issue policies againsVall forms of accident. From this beginning the business has developed until at the present time some sixty-five companies on the stock plan—not to mention mutuals—are engaged in this form of in surance.
6. What is an this form of insurance the question arose very early when claims were made as to whether the injury was caused by an "accident." It is evident that the difficulty, like most other ques tions, comes when the case is on the border-line, and the best way to present it is to give the opinion of the court in two or three cases : In the case of the United States Mutual Accident Association vs. Barry (131 U. S. 100), the assured died from injuries sustained in jumping off a plat form. The Supreme Court approved in its decision the following instructions: We understand from the testimony, without question, that the deceased jumped from the platform with his eyes open, for his own convenience, in the free exercise of his choice, and not from any perilous necessity. He encountered no obstacle in jumping, and he alighted on the ground in an erect posture. So far we proceed without difficulty. But you must go further and inquire, and here is the precise point on which the question turns: Was there or was there not any unexpected or unforeseen or involuntary movement of the body, from the time Dr. Barry left the platform until he reached the ground, or in the act of alighting? Did he or did he not alight on the ground just as he intended to do? Did he accomplish just what he intended to do, in the way he intended to? Did he or did he not unexpectedly lose or relax his self-control in his downward movement? Did his feet strike the ground as he intended or expected, or did they not? Did he or did he not miscalculate the distance, and was there or was there not any involuntary turning of the body in the downward movement, or in the act of alighting on the ground? These are points directly pertinent to the question in hand.
And I instruct you that if Dr. Barry jumped from the platform and alighted on the ground in the way he intended to do, and nothing unforeseen, unexpected, or involuntary occurred changing or affecting the downward movement of his body as he expected or would naturally expect such a movement to be made, or causing him to strike the ground in any different way or position from that which he antici pated or would naturally anticipate, then any resulting in jury was not effected through any accidental means. But if, in jumping or alighting on the ground, there occurred, from any cause, any unforeseen or involuntary movement, turn, or strain of the body which brought about the alleged injury, or if there occurred any unforeseen circumstance which interfered with or changed such a downward move ment as he expected to make, or as it would be natural to expect to make under such circumstances, and as caused him to alight on the ground in a different position or way from that which he intended or expected, and injury thereby resulted, then the injury would be attributable to accidental means.
In what are called the poison cases, an injurious substance was taken by mistake. In the case of Riley vs. Interstate Business Men's Accident Association (152 N. W. 617), the chief justice spoke thus on the matter: I am entirely clear that John N. Riley came to his death by external, violent and accidental means, and am just as certain that deceased did not voluntarily take poison. The only question in the case to my mind is, Did he take it in voluntarily, bringing its taking within the meaning of the exception in the policy? The question is a narrow one. What is the meaning of the term "involuntary taking of poison "? I confess to some doubt on this proposition, for I hesitate to apply it so broadly as to cover every case of unintentional poisoning, as where it results from some lethal substance found in ordinary food, or any case where the poison is inadvertently mixed with other apparently innocu ous substance or substances by accident only.