NATURAL RESULT

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 66, 11 December 1930, Page 10

NATURAL RESULT

Injury from Throwing Ball INSURANCE PROBLEM Decision for Company Holding that when Leslie Henry Charles Long, shipping clerk, hurt his shoulder by picking up and throwing a tennis ball he was not injured by accidental means, the Appeal Court yesterday decided a point of great importance to insurance companies, a point that, had it been held against them, would probably have necessitated changes in the wording of policies. Long had been awarded judgment against the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd., which appealed from the decision at the last sitting of the Appeal Court, and in its judgment yesterday the court upheld the appeal. The Appeal Court judgment stated that the question in this case was not whether the injury was accidental in the sense that it was an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event, but, as Mr. Justice Blair had correctly stated, whether the injury was caused by accidental means. The judgment proceeded to quote from various decisions given in somewhat similar cases, and, concluding, it said:— “The respondent did not give evidence pointing to any involuntary, unforeseen or unexpected movement. Sudden tension on a muscle is a known cause of disablement in shoulder joint injuries, and from the statement that it was a fairly long throw, it may be taken that the Injured man exerted some degree of force. It is said that ordinary movements of the body may produce ricks and sprains and the medical testimony supporting the plaintiff's case coincided with the testimony of a witness for the defendant that the injury suffered is an exceedingly likely result from throwing a tennis ball. “Upon this evidence we are not able to say that the result was one very unlikely to happen from the throwing of a light tennis ball, having regard to such force as was exerted by the respondent. The evidence does not warrant a conclusion that the injury was other than the natural result of the respondent’s purely voluntary act.” The appeal was allowed with costs on the lowest scale. Judgment will be entered in the Supreme Court for the appellant with costs on the lowest scale with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements.