Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting a distinction between “ ‘accidental injuries’ ” and “ ‘accidental means’ ” because “[c]ourts should not adopt gossamer distinctions which the average [person] for whom the policy is written cannot possibly be expected to understand.”
• “Courts should not adopt gossamer distinctions which the average [person] for whom the policy is written cannot possibly be expected to understand”
• “Courts should not adopt gossamer distinctions which the average [person] for whom the policy is written cannot possibly be expected to understand”
• an accident, to be within the Workmen’s Compensation Act, must be traceable to a definite time, place, and cause
• “arguments of counsel on a point other than one decided by the Appellate Court are not properly directed to this court until the question has been first decided by the Appellate Court”
• “arguments of counsel on a point other than one decided by the Appellate Court are not properly directed to this court until the question has been first decided by the Appellate Court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).