The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-06-27 00:00:00

" LOVELL and ANOTHER v. the ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY (LIMITED)."

The above cause has been before the Court of
Queen's Bench, and was an action to recover £l,OOO
on a policy of insurance against death by accident
The defence was that the deceased had, contrary to
one of the conditions of the policy, exposed himself
"to obvious risk and danger," and that consequently
his representatives were not entitled to recover.
_ . _

-
The plaintiffs were the exesutors of the late Mr. Judkins,
a farmer, of gtowe, in Northamptonshire, who in June, 1071,
effected a policy of insurance with the company for £l,OOO.
There was a stipulation in the policy that the company
would not be liable in Case the insured, at the time uf the
accident, exposed himself to obvious risk and danger. On
the 31st of July last the deceased had travelled from Lincoln
to Blissworth, arriving there about nine o'clock in the even-
ing. The deceased inquired the time of the next train to
W'eedon. near where his farm was, and having been informed
that he would have to wait for all hour, he determined to walk
honie, and loft the station for that purpose, the distance
he had to walk being only about live miles by road, but
shorter by walking along a portion of the line. About
three o'clock in the morning, in consequence of informa-
tion received at Blissworth Station, tivo porters proceeded
down the line In the direction of weeilon, and at about
two or three miles distant they found the deceased lying
dead in the 6-foot way, with his legs on the up-line, and
his feet cut off just above the ankle, It was supposed
that in endeavouring to kgep cot .if the way of the up
slow (lain he noist have got ti doSe to a e tiOWII line,
and that the Irish limited mail, which travels eta very rapid
rate, must have caiLlit Min on the left shoulder, mid
knocked him on to the tip line, the slow train passing over
his legs. It was contend.' for the company that the de-
eeesed, by walking tit the six-f .t way at night, hail exposed
himself to " obvious risk and iliingsr," which exonerated the
company from liability.
The Lord Chief Justice said the mere act of trespass aid
not amount to an unlawful act as against the defendants,
, whatever it might be against the Railway Company. The
only question for the jury to consider was whether the
deceased by his own conduct had brought himself within the
exceptions of the policy, so as not to be entitled to recover.
The company very properly stipulated for certain immunities
—such as against dangers which a man of prudence and in.
telliger co must know to be dangerous, though the effects in
the shape of disaster might be uncertain.

The jury discussed the matter together for a con-
sidetable time and then returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, saying that they did not think the deceased
was running a risk obvious to his mind.
The Lord Chief Justice : But ought it not to have
been obvious to his mind.

The Foreman : My Lord, we find that he was not
running an "obvious risk."

The Lord Chief Justice: Very well, that is a ver-
dict for the plaintiff ; but I shall stay execution, and
if the question is one of law for the Judge, I shall de-
cide it quite the other way, for I should say that the
deceased was running a risk which was very " obvious "
indeed.

.....
A Juror May I say a word, my Lord, in explana-
tion of the verdict?

The i7o;ti (Thief :Justice Certainly not.