Thomas Levey committed for trial at the assizes 1904
Kate Scarr versus the General Accident Assurance Company (1904)
In 1903 , Renforth Thomas Scarr, was manager of Flinn's Maltings in Bishop's Stortford, Herts. He had spent an enjoyable Christmas Day with his family, but on Boxing Day he had to go in to supervise the men at 6 a.m. (an interesting reflection on working hours).
Just before 10 o'clock he staggered home complaining of agonising pain in the chest.
He had just been involved in a tussle with a drunken workman. With great difficulty his family got him upstairs and into bed, while the maid ran round for the doctor. His wife Kate, by now thoroughly alarmed, started to question him, but talking distressed him so much that, when the doctor arrived, he gave orders that no one should speak to him on that subject. Mr Scarr's condition grew steadily worse, and four weeks later, he died.
An inquest was ordered, but the drunken workman, Thomas Levey, had fled the town. As he was the principle witness, the inquest was adjourned. He was picked up at Stanstead Abbots and produced in court four days later. He said he was late for work on Boxing Day because he had not been called. He denied that he was drunk, but other witnesses contradicted him, saying that he was too drunk to work. The jury finally returned the verdict that the deceased, suffering from a disease of the heart, had met his death accidentally from over-exertion in ejecting a man from his employer's premises.
Levey was committed for trial at the assizes where his defence was that the whole episode had been accidental. He had not intended to injure Mr. Scarr. As there was no witnesses, the evidence was to slight to convict him on a charge of assault, but he was jailed for 14 days for being drunk and disorderly.
At the time of his death, Mr Scarr had two life insurance policies. His widow Kate accordingly claimed for death benefit on these two policies. The first company paid up without hesitation, but the second, the General Accident Assurance Company, contested her claim and, on the advice of her solicitors, William Gee and Sons of Bishop's Stortford, she took them to court. The case was heard in the King's Bench Division before Mr. Justice Bray on 16th December 1904.
The preamble to the hearing filled in the relevant background. On 8th April 1898 R. T. Scarr had taken out a policy which, for an annual premium of £2, insured his life for £500 in the event of death by accident. His health and activities were discussed in detail. He was a stout, heavily built man, aged 52, but not of abnormal size or weight. He was in apparent good health and able, without any complaint or heart trouble, to carry out his duties, which involved a good deal of walking, ascending and descending upright iron ladders, and other outdoor exercise. His doctor had sounded his heart five months previously in July 1903 without detecting anything abnormal. On 26th December 1903 Mr. Scarr was at the malting premises at about 9.30 to 9.45, being apparently in a state of good health. On the premises was a man named Levey who was more or less drunk and Mr. Scarr attempted to eject him, using some physical exertion for that purpose by pushing and pulling him in order to overcome the drunken man's passive resistance. The effect of this exertion was that Mr. Scarr immediately returned home with acute pain in his chest. Despite constant medical attention, his condition grew worse and four weeks later, on 25th January 1904, he died.
Had it not been for his exertions in attempting to eject the drunken man, Mr. Scarr might have lived a considerable time longer, but counsel for the General Accident Assurance Company asserted that there had been no accident in this case. Mr. Justice Bray delivered a written judgement, in which he stated that there was nothing accidental in the pushing and pulling. Scarr intended to do this. The drunken man offered no resistance. It was true that Scarr could not foresee the effects of his exertion, but this could not be called accidental. There was no slip or fall or blow. He intended to push and pull and he pushed and pulled. He intended to exert himself violently and the injury to his heart followed as a natural consequence. The question did not depend on whether or not Scarr knew that he had a weak heart. If he had known that, he would probably not have tried to eject the drunken man, but that did not make the ejecting or the result accidental. He therefore found for the General Accident Assurance Company.
Judgement was delivered on 20th December 1904, which must have meant a gloomy Christmas for Kate Scarr and her children. It was ironic that at the inquest and at Levey's trial the whole episode had been described as accidental and that Mr. Justice Bray should have said there was no accident, although it would be difficult to find fault with his logic. However, the Earl of Halsbury, in Volume 2, page 196 of The Laws of England dissents from Mr. Justice Bray's viewpoint that there was no accident, so Kate Scarr, had she had the money and the courage to do so, might have won her case if she had appealed.
( Ack: Death by Accident by J.R.Scarr )
Home page