Sary Danger

Where the insured was shot when unarmed, in the course of an altercation, it was held that there could be a recovery, though the insured may have been the aggressor, if he had no reason to believe that his opponent was armed. The court held that the test was whether the assured “had voluntarily or intentionally done some act which reasonable prudence would nave pronounced dangerous and in which death had followed as a consequence;” Union C. & S. Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 591, 40 S. W. 1080, 60 Am. St Rep. 873. Where a party going home at night voluntarily left other and safe paths of travel and used a dangerous railway trestle; Travelers* Ins. Co. v. Jones, 80 Ga. 541, 7 S. E. 83, 12 Am. St Rep. 270; and where the assured sat down on a railway track when an engine moving toward him was only 25 feet away; or crossed dangerous railroad tracks merely to save time; Glass v. Accident Ass’n, 112 Fed. 495; Williams v. Acc. Ass*n, 133 N. Y. 366, 31 N. E. 222; and where the assured jumped in the dark from a freight train in rapid motion; Shevlin v. Acc. Ass’n, 94 Wis. 180; the exception in the policy was held to apply. But it must be shown that there is on the part of the insured some degree of consciousness of the danger which results in the accidental death of the insured; Miller v. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167, 21 S. Wf 39, 20 L. R. A. 765; Lovelace v. Protective Ass’n, 126 Mo. 104, 28 S. W. 877, 30 L. R. A. 209, 47 Am. St. Rep. 638. A voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger implies a conscious, intentional exposure, something of which one is conscious but willing to take the risk. By taking a policy against accident one naturally understands that he is to be protected against accident readvertence. The phrase means something more than contributory negligence or want of ordinary care on the part of the assured; Follis v. Acc. Ass’n, 94 la. 435, 62 N. W. 807, 28 L. R. A. 78, 58 Am. St Rep. 408. The phrase is not the entire equivalent of ordinary negligence; a degree of consciousness of danger is necessary; Miller v. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167, 21 S. W. 39, 20 L. R. A. 765. See Insurance.