161 Mass. 149 (1894), Keene v. New England Mut. Acc. Ass'n

Citation:161 Mass. 149, 36 N.E. 891
Opinion Judge:ALLEN, J.
Party Name:KEENE v. NEW ENGLAND MUT. ACC. ASS'N.
Attorney:E.M. Johnson and John W. Keith, for plaintiff. Ranney & Clark, for defendant.
Case Date:March 28, 1894
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 149

161 Mass. 149 (1894)

36 N.E. 891

KEENE

v.

NEW ENGLAND MUT. ACC. ASS'N.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 28, 1894

         [36 N.E. 891] Plaintiff's intestate was employed in Boston as a salesman in a wholesale leather house, and on the morning of June 4, 1891, went to Brockton, Mass., by cars, arriving there about 9 a.m. He left the cars on the side nearest the station, and, as it was raining, opened his umbrella, passed in front of the engine attached to the train, to the platform No. 2; and as he stepped from platform No. 2 upon the railroad track to the east, in order to cross the track to the street known as "Railroad Avenue" upon the east of the railroad tracks, was struck by the first of two freight cars, which had been kicked to the north from the rear of a train consisting of an engine and several freight cars, which had pulled out to the south from the station at the time of the arrival of the passenger train, and which, at the time the plaintiff was struck by the detached cars, was standing still upon the track, at some distance south. The detached cars were in charge of a brakeman, who was on the top of the car which struck plaintiff's intestate, and this brakeman called out to the plaintiff's intestate, to "look out," just before he was struck, but not in time to prevent the accident. The jury viewed the premises, and the location of the trains, cars, and engines was pointed out to them before the trial. At the time of the accident the wind was southeast, the passenger engine was blowing off steam, and the plaintiff's intestate was about five feet back from the forward trucks of the passenger engine when struck first by the freight cars.

         COUNSEL

Page 150

          E.M. Johnson and John W. Keith, for plaintiff.

         Ranney & Clark, for defendant.

         OPINION

         ALLEN, J.

         The defendant insured the deceased "against personal bodily injuries effected *** through external, violent, and accidental means, within the intent and meaning of the provisos and conditions" recited in the policy. The provisos and conditions material to be considered are as follows: "No claim shall be valid under this certificate when the death or injury may have been caused by dueling, fighting, wrestling," or "may have happened in consequence *** of racing of any description, or of any voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger, hazard, or perilous adventure." "The certificate holder is required to use all due diligence for personal safety and protection." "For injuries received while *** walking or being on the roadbed or bridge of any railway, the certificate holder or his beneficiary shall be entitled only to the indemnity or death loss provided...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP