Intoxicating Liquors: Statutory Forfeiture of Automobile Carrying Liquor: Due Process

1921 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW and traveling duties". Held, that the plaintiff could recover. Clark v. Travelers' Ins. Co., (Vt., I920), III Atl. 449. It appeared from the evidence in the case that although the plaintiff made the two trips to New York, he did so without due regard for his health, and experienced considerable bodily pain. That being the case, the decision of the court was not inconsistent with the proposition that an attempt to perform some of the duties of one's occupation, when such an attempt is an indiscretion or an error of judgment, will not defeat a claim of total disability. United Casualty Co. v. Perryman, 203 Ala. 212. It must also be borne in mind that the courts in these insurance cases show a tendency to be very liberal toward the insured and to construe the language of the policy against the insurer on the ground that he chooses the language of the contract. The instant case is in accord with other authorities on this question of what amounts to total disability, although in some of the cases the distinction between partial and total disability is very finely drawn. The distinction seems to turn largely on the clause in the policy defining the application of the indemnity to the injury and to the occupation, and defining the disability. In the following cases the clauses in the policies were the same as that in the case at bar and yet a recovery was denied; Spicer v. Conmmercial Mutual Accident Ins. Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 271; Gracey v. Peoples' Mut. Accident Ins. Asso., 2I Pitts. L. J. N. S. 25; Ford v. U. S. Mut. Accident Relief Co., 148 Mass. I53; Bean v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 94 Cal. 58I; Knapp v. Preferred Mutual Accident Association, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 84; Stevens v. Peoples' Mutual Accident Asso., 150 Pa. 132. In the following cases a recovery was allowed:. Younq v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 80 Me. 244; Baldwin v. Fraternal Accident Ass'n, 31 Misc. Rep. 124; Lobdill v. Laboring Meni's Mutual Aid Ass'n, 69 Minn. 14; Turnzer v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., II2 Mich. 425. It appears from an examination of the cases that the courts of last resort are not in complete accord, but the weight of authority seems to be that the insured is "totally disabled" within the meaning of the policy if he is unable, with prudence and a due regard for his physical welfare, to perform the substantial and material acts necessary to carry on his occupation. Even though the insured is able to perform a few occasional and incidental acts pertaining to his occupation, yet if he is unable to perform the substantial and material portion of his work he is considered as "totally disabled". See 4 COOLEY'S BRIEFS ON INSURANCE, 3290. As
doi:10.2307/1278200 fatcat:nf32v7utcbevpbnm7wd72l7rha