Piper v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass'n

37 N.E. 759, 161 Mass. 589, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 245
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 22, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 N.E. 759 (Piper v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Piper v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass'n, 37 N.E. 759, 161 Mass. 589, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 245 (Mass. 1894).

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The policy or certificate issued by the defendant was upon certain express conditions, one of which contained the following clause: “ Entering or attempting to enter or leave any public conveyance using steam as a motive power while the same is in motion, or walking or being on the road bed or bridge of any steam railway, are hazards not contemplated or covered by this certificate.” On the undisputed facts of this case we think that the plaintiff’s husband when he was killed was walking on the road-bed of the New York and New England Railroad Company within the meaning of this clause. We have no occasion to consider whether crossing the road-bed of a railroad when travelling along a public way, or along a private way which a person has a right to use, is “ walking or being on the road-bed ” within the meaning of the certificate. According to the report, it must be taken as conceded that the plaintiff’s husband was walking longitudinally on the road-bed between the tracks of the railroad for the purpose of reaching the station. There was a public way across the railroad, and a walk parallel with the tracks extending from this way to the station, which he could have used. The place where he was walking was not fitted up as a way ; if was a part of the road-bed, and nothing [591]*591more. That many people used it as the plaintiff’s husband did is immaterial in a suit against this association.

In accordance with the terms of the report, the

Verdict is to stand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Murray v. Continental Insurance
48 N.E.2d 145 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Archibald v. Order of United Commercial Travelers
104 A. 792 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1918)
Osgood v. United States Health & Accident Insurance Co.
84 A. 50 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1912)
Garcelon v. Commercial Travellers' Eastern Accident Ass'n
81 N.E. 201 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Keene v. New England Mutual Accident Ass'n
41 N.E. 203 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 N.E. 759, 161 Mass. 589, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-mercantile-mutual-accident-assn-mass-1894.