44 S.E.2d 915 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1947
There was, under the facts and circumstances of this case, sufficient evidence to authorize the finding that the death of the insured was accidental within the meaning of the policy, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
As to the first encounter, there was evidence that McLellan was and evidence that he was not disturbing the peace such as to warrant Harris' attempt to arrest him. There was evidence to warrant the finding that McLellan used only such force as was necessary to repel the attempt and evidence that the force used was excessive. There was evidence that McLellan was the aggressor and evidence that Harris was the aggressor. When the action recommenced at the doctor's offices, it is undisputed that McLellan lunged forward in an effort to wrest the shotgun from Harris as Harris entered the office. Since the jury was authorized to find that Harris was illegally attempting to arrest McLellan and the facts show that in his attempted arrest Harris *132 had fired upon and wounded McLellan, it was also a question for the jury whether or not McLellan's action in lunging for the gun was a revengeful act of aggression on the part of McLellan or whether it was done in an effort to defend his life, believing that Harris was maliciously attempting to arrest him without cause and that Harris intended to fire upon him as he had done before at the "Star Grill." It was further a question for the jury's determination whether or not Davis fired upon and killed McLellan in cold blood without justifiable cause or whether he did so believing him to be in the act of shooting him. It was likewise a question for the jury whether or not McLellan had the shotgun in his hands at the time of his death, whether or not he was pointing it at Davis, and whether or not, if he did not have the gun, he was attempting to obtain it for the purpose of shooting Davis or Harris.
The courts have repeatedly stated the rule that in order for an act resulting in death to be accidental within the terms of accident policies that the act causing the death must have been unforeseen, unexpected, or unusual. Atlanta Accident Asso. v.Alexander,
The jury resolved these issues in favor of the plaintiff beneficiary and since there was sufficient evidence to authorize the finding in her favor, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.