Caron v. American Motorists Ins. Co. of Chicago
| Citation | 277 Mass. 156 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1931 |
| Parties | CARON v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHICAGO, ILL., & another. |
November 2, 1931.
Present: RUGG, C.
Insurance, Motor vehicle liability. Motor Vehicle, Operation. A policy of insurance issued under Section 34A, inserted in G.L.c. 90 by St.
1925, c. 346 Section 2, to the owner of a motor truck used by him in the business of delivering ice, does not provide indemnity against loss by reason of liability to pay damages in accordance with a judgment recovered by a pedestrian, who, in passing on a crosswalk on a public way behind the truck while it was not in motion, fell and was injured when he slipped upon a piece of ice which had broken from cakes being removed from the truck and had fallen to the crosswalk.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on September 13, 1930. The suit was heard in the Superior Court on an agreed statement of facts by Whiting, J., by whose order there was entered a final decree dismissing the bill. The plaintiff appealed.
The case was submitted on briefs. H.A. Moran, for the plaintiff.
G.H. Whittemore & J.P. Moriarty, for the defendant insurance company.
This is a suit in equity brought to enforce payment of a judgment for damages for personal injuries recovered by the plaintiff against one Frank L. Gibbs, insured under a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. G.L.c. 175, Section 112; c. 214, Section 3, (10). Lorando v. Gethro, 228 Mass. 181 . The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. Thus it appears that the defendant issued a policy of liability insurance of the character required by St. 1925 c. 346, commonly known as the compulsory motor vehicle insurance law. By such policy the defendant agreed to indemnify the insured, or any one responsible for the operation of his motor truck with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries. This policy was in force at the time of the accident to the plaintiff.
In July, 1927, the motor truck in question was being used by the insured in the business of delivering ice, and was parked on a public street for the purpose of making delivery of ice to a nearby store. The tailboard of the truck projected up to or across that portion of the street used by pedestrians. There was evidence that pieces of ice, which had broken from cakes of ice being removed from the truck, had fallen to the crosswalk. While the plaintiff was crossing the street and about to pass in the rear of the motor truck, she stepped upon one of these pieces of ice, thereby being caused to fall with resulting personal injuries. For such injuries she recovered final judgment in an action against the insured for a substantial sum which remains unsatisfied. The question is whether injuries of this nature are within the scope of the insurance policy issued by the defendant.
No copy of the policy is in the record. It must be presumed, however, that it was issued in...
To continue reading
Request your trial