Hull v. Equitable Accident Ass'n

• Decision Date: 15 July 1889
• Citation: 41 Minn. 231,42 N.W. 936
• Parties: HULL v EQUITABLE ACCIDENT ASS'N.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

41 Minn. 231

42 N.W. 936

HULLvEQUITABLE ACCIDENT ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 15, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A contract of life and accident insurance excepted from the risks covered by it injuries resulting from being upon the platform of moving cars, or from attempting to enter or leave such cars in motion; this exception not being applicable, however, to the exposure of railway employés in the performance of their duty. The assured, a shop-hand of a railway company, while being carried homeward from the shop at the close of the day's work, upon one of the company's trains, went out upon the platform while the train was in motion, intending to get off when it should stop, for the purpose of crossing over, by a switch, to another track. He was thrown off, and killed. Held, that the case was within the specific exceptions in the contract, and the insurer was not liable.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; WILKIN, Judge.

John D. O'Brien, for appellant.

Flandrau, Squires & Cutcheon, for respondent.

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 employ ´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 employs 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...