Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/117

 96

is deprived of the use of his leg, except when wearing an artificial support for his body. The court said : — "It will be perceived therefore that the policy in suiinsures only against involuntary, .external, violent, and ac cidental injuries, and not against disease of any kind, nor against disabilities which are the result, wholly or in part, of disease or bodily infirmities; and, for the purposes of the present case, the only injury for which there can be any recovery, within the terms of the policy, is the loss of one foot. Now, in point of fact, as has been already stated, the plaintiff has not lost a foot. So far as the evi dence goes, both his feet are in perfect natural condition. His left foot is the only one in question, and in reality it has received no injury of any kind, external or internal. So far as all its physical functions are concerned as a mem ber of his body, it is entirely capable of use, if the other parts of his body which can or may affect its use are in proper condition. It is not proved, or even alleged, that any of the muscles, tendons, or nerves of the foot are in jured in any manner. The source of the difficulty does not lie in the foot nor in the leg. It is in another part of the body, to wit, the back. Just what the actual physical injury or difficulty was is not precisely stated in the medi cal testimony. It is uncertain. It is supposed to be some injury to a muscle or ligament or nerve or nerve centre, or to the vertebra; of the spinal column. The physicians have different theories regarding this subject, and none of them claims to know with certainty. ... In such circum stances we do not see how he can be considered to have suffered the loss of a foot. He has neither lost a foot nor the use of it. He has it, and he constantly uses it, and therefore it cannot be said that because he is deprived of its use he is entitled to be considered as having lost the foot itself. If he had suffered an attack of permanent pa ralysis in the leg, and been thus deprived of the use of his foot, he could not have recovered, as the cause of his dis ability would have been disease. If when he removes the jacket a paralytic condition ensues, is it not due to a dis eased condition of the nerves of the back, and does that help his legal standing under the fifth clause of the condi tions of the policy? We think not; but aside from that he has received surgical treatment for his injury which has been successful, and has enabled him to preserve the use

of his foot, and the position is not tenable that he has lost his foot, within the meaning of the policy, because he has lost its use. Of course, if the foot had been cut off by the accident or by amputation, and he had been provided with an artificial substitute which he could use, he could recover; but that would be because he had literally brought himself within the terms of the policy by actually losing his foot. But where, as here, he has not lost his foot, and it has not even been injured, and he is enabled to use it constantly by means of an appliance which pre vents an injury in another part of his body from affecting the use of the foot, we are quite clear that there can be no recovery under the contract of the parties as for the loss of a foot."

So it appears that one cannot at once have his foot and lose his foot. NEGLIGENCE — INJURY то BATHER. — Boyce v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., Supreme Court of Utah, 31 Рaс. Rep. 450, raised a singular question of negli gence. It was an action against the proprietor of a lake bathing-resort, for injuries sustained by a bather, from broken glass on the bottom of the lake. There was testimony that though defendant employed men for the purpose of examining the bottom and remov ing dangerous substances, there had been no exami nation made by them on the day of the accident nor on the day before, and that if such examination had been made, the glass might have been discovered. It was held that a verdict for the plaintiff was war ranted This seems reasonable, inasmuch as the proprietor of a wharf has been held liable for an in jury to a vessel by an object on the ground under water in the slip. The court, however, seem to place as little value on a leg as did Captain Polwarth, in Cooper's " Lionel Lincoln," who said : " One can be a very good waterman as you see without legs, — a good fiddler, a first-rate tailor, a lawyer, a doctor, a parson, a very tolerable cook, and in short, anything but a dancing-master. 1 see no use in a leg unless it be to have the gout."