H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1910
• Citation: 92 N.E. 329,206 Mass. 223
• Parties: H. P. HOOD & SONS, Inc. v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

206 Mass. 223

92 N.E. 329

H. P. HOOD & SONS, Inc. v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 24, 1910

COUNSEL

Whipple, Sears & Ogden, for plaintiff.

M. O Garner, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The defendant issued to the plaintiff corporation a policy insuring it 'against loss from the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries or death accidentally suffered while this policy is in force, by any employé * * * of the assured while on duty within the factory, shop or yard described in the schedule * * * in and during the operation of the trade or business described in the schedule.' While the policy was in force one Jeremiah Barry, who was employed by the plaintiff as a hostler in its stables at Charlestown, had the care of horses which were afterwards found to have been suffering from the glanders and were killed, and Barry was directed to assist in cleaning up the stalls. No notice was given to him that the horses suffered or had suffered from the glanders. The glanders is an infectious disease, and subsequently Barry was attacked by it and brought suit against the plaintiff for negligently putting him to work on the horses and thereby exposing him to the disease. Judgment was rendered in his favor for $1,512, which the plaintiff paid in full. This action is brought to recover the amount so paid with the costs and expenses of suit. The defendant was duly notified by the plaintiff of the bringing of the action against it and was requested, as provided in the policy, to take upon itself the defense of this suit, but it declined to do so on the ground that the cause of action did not come within the terms of the policy. The case was heard by the court without a jury on stipulations by the parties as to the facts and the evidence. It was agreed that the damages assessed in Barry's favor were fair and reasonable, and it was also agreed that if the court found that the defendant was liable it should add to the $1,512 such sum as it found to be reasonable and proper and necessarily disbursed by the plaintiff in the suit of Barry against it. The court found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,474.68. The defendant asked the court to make certain rulings and findings which the court refused to make, and the defendant excepted thereto and to the findings and rulings that were made. The case comes here on report. If the rulings and findings are correct judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff; otherwise for the defendant.

The policy is entitled 'Manufacturers' Employers' Liability Policy.' The contract which it contains is one of indemnity in which the defendant engages to make good to the plaintiff any loss or damage which it may sustain by reason of its liability to its employés for bodily injuries accidentally suffered by them while engaged in doing the work which they were employed to do. It is a kind of insurance that has grown out of modern industrial and business conditions, and it is intended to afford full protection to employers in all cases where their employés have accidentally received bodily injuries for which they are liable. It also accomplishes the economic result with which, however, we have nothing to do, of distributing more or less widely some of the loss or damage which falls on those engaged in industrial occupations. It is to be noted that the policy does not contain the words 'violent and external' in addition to the word 'accidental,' as is the case in many if not most accident policies. The insurance is liability insurance so called, and not insurance against accidents. The liability insured against is that 'imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries or death accidentally suffered * * * by any employé.' Although the policy contains many conditions, there is no limitation or exception in regard to the kind or nature or cause of the accidents out of which the liability insured against may arise. The fact that the accident may have been occasioned through negligence on the part of the insured is, therefore, immaterial. Though instructions to that effect were requested and refused and exceptions were taken to such refusal, they have not been argued; the defendant being apparently content with the instructions given in regard to that matter. The question then is whether the amount which the plaintiff was compelled to pay Barry was paid 'for damages on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered' by him within the meaning of the policy. It is plain that Barry suffered bodily injury in consequence of becoming infected with the glanders; as much so as if he had had a leg or an arm broken by a kick from a vicious horse. Indeed it is possible that the bodily injury caused by the glanders was greater and more lasting than that caused by a broken leg or arm would have been. It is plain also that he suffered the injury 'within the factory, shop or yard described in the schedule,' and 'during the operation of the trade or business described in the schedule.' Was the injury brought about accidentally, within the fair scope and meaning of the policy, or was it the result of a disease contracted while in the...