*1 Estes, P. M. Estes with whom Messrs. P. Mr. Moreau brief, Nailling were on appellant. for T. Myron appellee. appearance No opinion delivered Cardozo Mr. Justice Court. insurance, the re- a policy accident
In suit with a judgment in,iaccot'dance recovered spondent liability the extent declaring of/the stipulation all. liable at insurer added damages cent were per twelve
Attorney’s fees and Section the statute. recovery in accordance with- to the Moses, & 1921. Digest, Crawford 6155, Arkansas 89, No. & question the same presents The case ante, McCray, Tennessee v. Ins. Co. p. Casualty by that decision. ruled judgment
Affirmed. OF ASSOCIATION PROTECTIVE TRAVELERS PRINSEN. AMERICA v. February Argued 9, 1934. Decided March
No. 429. *2 Mr. Bagley, Emmett M. with whom Mr. Paul H. Ray was on the for brief, petitioner. Joseph Peterson,
Mr. H. with whom Harley Messrs. W. Gustin and D. Worth Clark were on brief, for respondent.
Mr. Justice Cardozo delivered opinion Court.
James Prinsen when he died was a member of the peti- tioner, a fraternal benefit association, incorporated under the laws of Missouri. By his certificate of membership, in case of benefits death were payable wife, to his Uluetta Prinsen, respondent in this court. The payment to be made to her by event death $5,000, accident was unless accident occurred while the member was en- gaged enumerated activities. Death suffered in such from circumstances was excluded the coverage. By the terms certificate association not to be liable disability or death a member is par- occurred “when 578 moving transportation gun- ...
ticipating or sub- or other substance dynamite, powder, stances.” was an officer of the his death Prinsen time of At the office in Salt which an Company, Powder Western city outside the Utah, powder magazine and a City, Lake Supply Company gave Tintic Powder limits. 300,000 Company to the Hercules Powder an order company Hercules asked and the dynamite caps, re- request to fill the order. company Western a few Prinsen, notice that within and with ceived Begaman, would come days representative, Hercules City delivery. February On accept Lake Salt Western office with a appeared Begaman at. exception This Association not follows: shall full text of *3 any disability beneficiary benefits, a or his be liable to member benefits, disability, special loss, special death loss benefits or when any following under of the conditions a member occurs or of death himself, by sane a member on while circumstances; when inflicted or body insane; injury are marks of there no visible or when death); being mark of (the body deemed a in case itself not such any degree under in member is in the influence of or while a when any narcotics; toxicating liquors of narcotic when liquor or or or wholly part by consequence in of the in reason of or use caused or any intoxicating or or the use narcotic or liquor liquors of of nar wholly part by any cotics; bodily or or mental when caused in in fighting, wrestling; firmity disease, dueling, when while or or or a participating acting member is as a sailor or soldier or in war or acting as an riot; while a member is aviator or balloonist when or participating navigation any in aerial or aeronautics of or is kind operator assistant; passenger, when par as a or a either member public ticipating agreed racing, wrecking, automobile or or in moving transportation mining, blasting, gunpowder, or or of dynamite, substances; or other substance when mem or murdered; resulting ber is from or an hazardous adventure disappearance member; altercation or when there is of a quarrel; voluntary (unless when the of over-exertion in a effort result humane life); voluntary unnecessary to a human when the result save of or exposure danger to risk injury." obvious motor carry truck which he was to the explosives. He Prinsen then drove to the magazine beyond city. magazine was opened with a key which Prinsen had brought him, with delivery caps made them by piling in boxes on the truck. The two men then again the truck go boarded back the Western office, Begaman driving car, and Prinsen beside him sitting A on the box. small -additional payment by was made Hercules to Western for the to the trip magazine, but Tintic, Hercules, hot was the owner of truck. On way back, the truck was in collision an engine with while crossing the tracks the Denver and Rio Grande Rail- There an explosion, road. immediate in which the destroyed truck was and Prinsen was blown to pieces. Begaman railway engineer and the were killed at same time. respondent brought suit on the membership cer
tificate recover the benefits payable the event of death accident. association defended on the ground that the member was killed while participating In transportation explosives. the District Court a verdict was in favor of defendant. The directed Appeals reversed, judge dissenting. Court of one 65 F. (2d) granted 841. This court certiorari to resolve a pos sible conflict with other decisions. Pittman v. federal Co., 17 F. (2d) 370; Lamar Ins. Head v. New York Life (2d) 43 F. in favor of respondent participa We assume ” in carriage something tion explosives imports *4 in more than the of the assured the vehicle of presence becomes, One in an carriage. passenger aeroplane who (cf. in may thereby participate Head v. New aeronautics Co., supra; Co., 95 York Ins. Bew v. Travelers Ins. Life 533; 859; N.J.L. Atl. Pittman v. Lamar in participates but it not follow that he supra), does carriage mails, though plane of the and his this travels to that use. One who part is in devoted knowledge in the-move- participate thereby not in a car does sleeping home brought information though is explosives, ment of in car are baggage explosives in a forward him that not enterprise relation to this was transit. But Prinsen’s in passenger of the as the relation passive so remote n thecases He had a truck which just supposed. gone upon, transporta- to the had been devoted its owner specially gone very pur- and had there for the of explosives, tion transportation possible. respondent pose making separate into á transaction split parts have us would Plainly in .aim and essence. the assured unitary that in facilitating delivery explosives traveling was 'magazine. Plainly he was Begaman the suburban with he opened and about like service when engaged still caps the truck. But magazine placed and errand did not end then abruptly his participation office had the journey and there. The return same to.his induced the journey and occasion that out. It motive explo- incident that there not an'adventitious were magazine. truck when he left the To sives that plan beginning from the part it was contrary, laden, him and out, then, should take the truck say riding back. To that he was on truck him take ”. half explosives transported were to state but while rather on this, riding case is he was the case. If explosives transported. the truck because were known advance that this was the he not substance carried, be he would not have stirred out of office. his There was a relation more intimate -than contiguity in presence -time or between his on the space truck and the presence no caps.- The relation accident; was pre-ordained causal. us that the respondent tells assured at the time of a voluntary guest,
the collision was much of makes
581 the label. payment or non-payment of fare has little, if any, bearing upon problem solved, to be yet label, unless scrutinized, may have capacity mis lead. In his relation to this enterprise, Prinsen was more “ voluntary than a guest. He invitee,” was a business riding out and back at the invitation of the owner because of a business interest common to them Bennett v. both. Co., Railroad 582, U.S. 577, 584; 102 Heskell v. Auburn L., Co., H. & P. 209 86; N.Y. 102 540; N.E. v. Haefeli Woodrich Co., Engineering 255 N.Y. 175 N.E. 442, 448; 123; Dames, Indermaur v. L.R. 1 C.P. 274; American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, Draft, Tentative 4,No. §§ 213. mayWe see the case more clearly if we' ask question ourselves whether Begaman would “ ” have been free to leave the guest magazine at the after delivery of the caps, and refuse to him bring home. Plainly not, without breach of duty to the Tintic com pany, employer, which had sent the car out with in structions to the driver carry Prinsen back. The re sult is all1one whether the instructions respect of car riage were tacit or- express.' By reasonable implication, return as well trip as outward one was within the of orbit the errand. Cudahy Packing Parramore, Co. v. 263 U.S. 426; Giles, Brick Co. v. 276 U.S. Bountiful 154, 158; Voehl Indemnity v. U.S.
The argument is made that a causal connection be- tween the death the explosion is not a in- necessary ference from the facts in evidence. The assured was blown to pieces, the fragments his body so being small autopsy that an impossible. We-are told that even impact so the engine may have been fatal without more. The contract say does not the holder policy is to have claim against no insurer he dies ” by reason of his participation carriage of ex- plosives. The says contract that he is to have no claim insurer if
against participating he he dies for a carriage just like explosives, provides soldier, par- he is or is result when as a sailor or a acting riot, or is under the nar- ticipating war influence *6 authority of intoxicating liquors.2 high or of Courts cotics in need of phrased have held that so is no policies there injury nexus the for- any causal between or death the forms of While proscribed activity bidden conduct.3 the continues, suspended the insurance is if it had never in force. Other that to work prefer been courts the view a suspension, aggravation such have an there must been n owing.4 of the hazard to which death or In injury 2 throughout in policy A nice discrimination is maintained the suit aggravations Thus, casualty causes’of the between of the hazard. ” liability voluntary is of is excluded when accident the result the voluntary unnecessary exposure or overexertion, result of or by any mental'infirmity bodily when or danger, or “caused” or to sequence is no There such insistence causal disease. participating or riot, is in a war or in aeronautics insurer or explosives. transportation 3 Greer, (2d) Travelers v. 499; F. 43 Order United Commercial Flannagan Co., Accident (2d) Provident & Ins. 136; 22 F. v. Life Maryland Casualty Railway Co., 52 F. Shader v. (2d) 888; Murdie v. Passenger Co., Automobile Ins. Ins. Conner v. Union 441; 66 N.Y. Farmers & Bank Co., Bradshaw v. App. 105; (2d) 863; 9 P. 122 Cal. Co., Com United 681; 332; Ins. Order 107 193 Pac. Kan. ers Life Guaranty Fidelity & Tripp, (2d) Travelers v. 37. Cf. U. S. F. mercial 63 Co. Guenther, Metropolitan Ins. 34; v. o. v. 281 U.S. Life C Conway, 252 N.Y. 449, 452; 169 642. N.E. 4 Imperial Assn., 110 223; 484; Accident N.W. Matthes v. Iowa 81 Co., cf. Jones v. 422; Bradley Mutual Ins. N.Y. 45 v. Benefit Life Assn., Accident 652; 485; Accident Mutual 92 Iowa 61 N.W. U.S. 723; Murray Bennett, New 258; v. 16 S.W. Insurance Co. v. 90 Tenn. Co., American Benham v. 614; Ins. York 96 N.Y. Central-Life Life Kelly Fidelity Mutual Co., 462; 612; 217 v. Ins. 140 Ark. S.W. Life 152; Bloom Franklin 276; Co., 169 Wis. 172 N.W. v. Ins. Life Co., Allen 308. M. B. 478; Ins. Ind. v. Cluff aspect might that the insurer be liable insured inattentive, fallen from the box while asleep dyna- caps So, remaining unexploded mite in the truck. policies liability is excluding while the assured an. doing act of the law have been read as violation to acts that directed result aggravate danger, with that liability Sunday violation of the or of unaffected laws the laws against See .the cases cited note profanity. supra. In readings diverge, so far as these there policy is no for need choose between the decision of the them may that have hand, case at nor a formula search ac- meaning is capacity reconcile them. the first If If controversy accepted, cepted, the ends. second for- beyond it is still clear debate that the effect of the risk of death the event magnify bidden was to act danger very event collision, aggravate of a may be to relieve required Less than this happened. *7 surely nothing more. liability, the insurer of but of the has policy sénse of this construction good At the very before us. the least the case illustration if not indeed cause of death, a concurrent was explosion mean not that event does policy the sole one.. segregation be a activity there shall proscribed of a of the con- and a distribution unison operating causes pur- the essential One of to assignable each. sequences risk is to put of the limitation to the be served poses comparison. 'of and dissection a process an end to such notice to given has the insurer its By policy form of become en- to refuse that it beneficiary will and assured moment At the subtleties. mystifying these tangled in an aggra- suspended by insurance was casualty the till remained and hazard, suspended of the vation removed. was hazard forbidden The judgment of Appeals Court is reversed and that of the District Court affirmed.
Reversed. Mr. Justice Stone, dissenting. I think judgment should be affirmed.
If participation cooperation in means the transportar tion, transporting more than is in presence on the involved vehicle being with the knowledge that an I carried, perceive can that there ground saying no here. participation journey That deceased had made the to deliver caps and, invitee,” as had “business a right to return on on placed the vehicle which he had it, seems me though as irrelevant as deceased a passenger embarked as on a train on which railroad the explosion occurred he his firm had shipped after dynamite it. By the terms of the policy, participa- tion, to liability, exclude must be at time the injury. After began, journey the return did deceased nothing facilitate transportation. He neither controlled nor had the to cor He right merely present. rol it. distinction drawn this between case of mere difficult of presence, application, so statement appears to,define to me rather than meaning to obscure term and .that, to violate the cardinal so far principle admits, their language reasonably insurance contracts are favorably interpreted be most insured. CITY OF GREENWOOD. CHASSANIOL v. *8 Argued February 6, 1934. Decided March No. 428.