Hull v. Equitable Accident Association

• Decision Date: 15 July 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 936,41 Minn. 231
• Parties: Hattie E. Hull v. Equitable Accident Association
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 N.W. 936

41 Minn. 231

Hattie E. Hull v. Equitable Accident Association

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 15, 1889

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a dismissal ordered at the trial. The action was to recover $ 3,000 on an insurance certificate issued by defendant.

The order refusing a new trial must be affirmed.

John D O'Brien, for appellant.

Flandrau Squires & Cutcheon, for respondent.

OPINION

Dickinson, J.

This plaintiff is the widow of one Edward A. Hull, who was killed under the circumstances to be hereafter stated. He had entered into a contract with the defendant, by the terms of which the latter insured him from death or disability from accidental causes, this plaintiff being named in the contract as the beneficiary in case of his death. At the trial, when the plaintiff's case was closed, the court granted a motion to dismiss the action, for the reason that the accident and death occurred under circumstances bringing the case within the express exceptions in the contract as to the liability of the defendant. The question now is whether a case was presented upon which a recovery could have been sustained.

The only condition of the contract to which it will be necessary to particularly refer is this: "The member herein named is required to use due diligence for personal safety and protection. Standing, being, or riding upon the platform of moving railway coaches, (other than street-cars,) or riding in any other place not provided for the transportation of passengers, or entering or attempting to enter or leave any public conveyance using steam as the motive power, while the same is in motion, or walking or being on the road-bed or bridge of any railway, are hazards not contemplated or covered by this certificate, and no sum shall be paid for loss of life or disability in consequence of such exposure happening to any person other than a member who is an employe on the railway on which, in the performance of his duty, the said injury shall have been sustained; but any person shall be permitted to travel for health, recreation, or business as a passenger, in the usual manner, by any private or public conveyance, without prejudice." The case made by the plaintiff may be thus stated: The deceased was a tin and copper-smith and pipe-fitter, employed as such in the car-shops of the Northern Pacific Railroad, four or five miles from the railway depot in St. Paul. The railroad company daily carried its shop employes from the city to these shops and back again, by a train used for that purpose. On the evening when this accident occurred, the shop-hands with one Barber, the master car-builder of that road, left the shop in their train for the city. The track being obstructed by a wreck at a certain point, they left their train, and Barber took a number of the men, including the deceased, into a coach of an empty train, which was about to run from the car-yard where such trains were made up to the Union depot, in the city, to receive passengers for its westward trip over the road. Barber had general authority, which justified his taking the men on this train. He had kept the deceased and some others with himself, thinking...