[DOWNLOAD] "Goldberg v. United Life and Accident Insurance Co." by Supreme Court of North Carolina No. 239 ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Goldberg v. United Life and Accident Insurance Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of North Carolina No. 239
- Release Date : January 26, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
[248 NC Page 88] Conceding, without deciding, that the plaintiff's evidence in some aspects is sufficient to show prima facie that the insured
met his death through accidental means within the insuring provisions of the policies, even so, the evidence discloses conclusively
that the insured met his death by homicide as the result of being struck by Dr. Black. True, it may be inferred that Dr. Black
was incited to action by the insulting language of the insured and that in striking the blow he had no intent to kill. Nevertheless,
the rule is that no words, however violent or insulting, justify a blow. Lewis v. Fountain, 168 N.C. 277, 84 S.E. 278; Palmer
v. R.R. 131 N.C. 250, 42 S.E. 604; 6 C.J.S., Assault and Battery, Sec. 91, p. 943. And death having resulted from the voluntary,
unlawful act of Dr. Black, i.e.; an assault and battery, it was death by "homicide" within the meaning of the exception clauses
of the policies. 40 C.J.S., Homicide, Sec. 58; 29 C.J., p. 1150. See also S. v. Knight, 247 N.C. 754 102 S.E.2d 259; S. v.
Hovis, 233 N.C. 359, 64 S.E.2d 564; United Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Prostic, 169 Md. 535, 182 A. 421. These things
appearing as the only reasonable inferences deducible from the testimony received in evidence, the judgment of nonsuit entered
below will be upheld on the ground that the defendant's affirmative defense of homicide was established as a matter of law
by the plaintiff's evidence. Where a defendant's affirmative defense is so established, nonsuit may be entered. Hedgecock
v. Ins. Co., 212 N.C. 638, 194 S.E. 86; Butler v. Page 89} Ins. Co., 213 N.C. 384, 196 S.E. 317; Thomas-Yelverton Co. v. Ins.
Co., 238 N.C. 278, 77 S.E.2d 692; Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 80 S.E.2d 248.