ACCIDENT (Lat. to, and cadere, to fall). An event which, under the circumstances, is unusual and unexpected. An event the real cause of which cannot be traced, or is at least not apparent. Wabash, St. L. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 112 Ind. 404, 14 N. E. 391, 2 Am. St. Rep. 193.
The happening of an event without the concurrence of the will of the person by whose agency it was caused ; or the happen ing of an event without any human agency. The burning of a house in consequence of a fire made for the ordinary purposes of cook ing or warming the house is an accident of the first kind ; the burning of the same house by lightning would be an accident of the second kind ; 1 Fonbl. Eq. 374, 375, n.; Mor ris v. 'Platt, 32 Conn. 85; Crutchfield v. R. Co., 76 N. C. 322 ; Hutchcraft's Ex'r v. Ins. Co., 87 Ky. 300, 8 S. W. 570, 12 Am. St. Rep. 484. An accident may proceed or result from negligence ; McCarty v. Ry. Co., 30 Pa. 247 ; Schneider v. Ins. Co., 24 Wis. 28, 1 Am. Rep. 257 ; and see 11 Q. B. 347 ; but a misfortune in business is not an accident ; Langdon v. Bowen, 46 Vt. 512. As to what the term in cludes see IDISITRANCE, sub-tit. Accident In =ranee. See INEVITABLE ACCIDENT.
In Equity Practice. Such an unforeseen event, misfortune, loss, act, or omission as is not the result of any negligence or mis conduct in the party. Francis, Max. 87 ; Story, Eq. Jur. § 78.
An occurrence in relation to a contract which was not anticipated by the parties when the same was entered into, and which gives an undue advantage to one of them over the other in a court of law ; Jeremy, Eq. 358. This definition is objected to, be cause, as accidents may arise in relation to other things besides contracts, it is inac curate in confining accidents to contracts ; besides, it does not exclude cases of unan ticipated occurrence resulting from the neg ligence or misconduct of the party seeking relief. See also 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 628. In many instances it closely resembles MISTAKE, which see.
In general, courts of equity will relieve a party who cannot obtain justice at law from the consequences of an accident which will justify the interposition of a court of equity.
The jurisdiction which equity exerts in case of accident is mainly of two sorts: over bonds with penalties to prevent a for feiture where the failure is the result of accident; 2 Freeno. Ch. 128; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 629 ; Rives v. Toulmin, 25 Ala. 452 ; Gar vin v. Squires, 9 Ark. 533, 50 Am. Dec. 224 ; Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 148 ; Price's Ex'r v. Fuqua's Adm'r, 4 Munf. (Va.)
68; Streeper v. Williams, 48 Pa. 450; as sickness; Jones v. Woodhull, 1 Root (Conn.) 298; Doty v. Whittlesey, 1 Root (Conn.) 310; or where a bond has been lost ; Deans v. Dortch, 40 N. C. 331; but if the penalty be liquidated damages, there can be no relief ; Merwin, Eq. § 409. And, second, where a negotiable or other instrument has been lost, in which case no action lay at law, but where equity will allow the one entitled to recover upon giving proper indemnity ; 4 Price 176; 7 B. & C. 90; Savannah Nat. Bank v. Haskins, 101 Mass. 370, 3 Am. Rep. 373; Bisph. Eq. § 177. In some states it has been held that a court of law can render judgment for the amount, requiring the de fendant to give a bond of indemnity; Bridge ford v. Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 546, 91 Am. Dec. 744; Swift v. Stevens, 8 Conn. 431; Almy y. Reed, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 421. Relief against a penal bond can now be obtained in almost all common-law courts ; Merwin, Eq. § 411.
The ground of equitable interference where a party has been defeated in a suit at law to which he might have made a good defence had he discovered the facts in sea son, may be referred also to this head ; Jones v. Kilgore, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 63; Pearce v. Chastain, 3 Ga. 226, 46 Am. Dec. 423; Brandon v. Green, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 130 ; Meek v. Howard, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 502; Davis v. Tileston, 6 How. (U. S.) 114, 12 L. Ed. 366 ; see Pemberton v. Kirk, 39 N. C. 178, "but in such case there must have been no negligence on the part of the defendant ; Semple v. McGatagan, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 98; Brandon v. Green, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 130; Miller v. McGuire, Morr. (Ia.) 150; Cosby's Heirs v. Wickliffe, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 120.
Under this head equity will grant relief cases of the defective exercise of a power in favor of a purchaser, creditor, wife, child, or charity, but not otherwise; Bisph. Eq. § 182. So also in other cases, viz., where a testator cancels a will, supposing that a later will is duly executed, which it is not ; where boundaries have been accidentally confused; where there has been an acciden tal omission to endorse a promissory note, etc.; id. § 183.
It is exercised by equity where there is not a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law ; Tucker v. Madden, 44 Me. 206; but not where such a remedy exists; Hudson v. Kline, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 379; Grant v. Quick, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 612; and a complete excuse must be made; English v. Savage, 14 Ala. 342.
See INEVITABLE ACCIDENT ; MISTAKE ; FOR TUITOUS EVENT ; NEGLIGENCE ; INSURANCE ; ACT OF GOD.