Neill v. Travellers' Insurance Co.

Neill v. Travellers' Insurance Co.

Undisputed evidence showed the deceased drove into a railway shunting yard where he had no right to be and contrary to company rules, which constituted voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger and thus triggered the policy exclusion; because only one reasonable inference from the facts was possible adverse to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1885) 12 SCR 55
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Elizabeth Neill; Defendant Respondent: The Travelers' Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 1885
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Accident Policy, Policy Condition Excluding Voluntary Exposure, Non Suit, Burden of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Interpretation of Insurance Contract
Source Language
english
Insurance Tort Civil Procedure Accident Policy Policy Condition Excluding Voluntary Exposure Non Suit Burden of Proof Contributory Negligence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Neill

Plaintiff Appellant

The Travelers' Insurance Company

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's death fell within the policy exclusion for "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger"
  2. 2 Whether violation of railway rules by the deceased barred recovery under the policy
  3. 3 Whether the case should have been withdrawn from the jury and a non‑suit entered

Ratio Decidendi

Undisputed evidence showed the deceased drove into a railway shunting yard where he had no right to be and contrary to company rules, which constituted voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger and thus triggered the policy exclusion; because only one reasonable inference from the facts was possible adverse to plaintiff, the judge correctly entered a non‑suit and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Rule absolute for non‑suit affirmed