{
  "id": 2973639,
  "name": "Maude B. Helm and Evelyn Helm, by Maude B. Helm, Appellants, v. Illinois Commercial Men's Association, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Helm v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,038",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "345",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 344"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "0ed6850fc74c1b99b1c6589365438195038c62da2b264b7ba0889b87108651dd",
    "simhash": "1:bd545104ba81067f",
    "word_count": 618
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maude B. Helm and Evelyn Helm, by Maude B. Helm, Appellants, v. Illinois Commercial Men\u2019s Association, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McGoorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bulkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellants.",
      "Ryan & Condon, for appellee; Irvin I. Livingston and D. A. Callahan, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maude B. Helm and Evelyn Helm, by Maude B. Helm, Appellants, v. Illinois Commercial Men\u2019s Association, Appellee.\nGen. No. 21,038.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jambs C. Martin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nRehearing allowed and additional opinion filed June 20, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion originally filed April 28, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Maude B. Helm and Evelyn Helm, by Maude B. Helm, her next friend, plaintiffs, against Illinois Commercial Men\u2019s Association, defendant, to recover on a policy of insurance on the life of Edgar L. Helm, deceased. From a judgment for defendant upon a trial before the court without a jury, plaintiffs appeal.\nThe contract in this case consisted of the application for insurance, the policy issued to the assured and the by-laws of the association. The by-laws offered in evidence by plaintiffs contained the following provision : \u2018 \u2018 This association shall not be liable to any person for any idemnity or benefit for * * * death * * * resulting from an accident to a member which happened while said member was unnecessarily exposing himself to danger; (or) was not in the exercise of due diligence for his self-protection; * * Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence showed that the deceased was killed while walking along a railroad right of way at a point between Vickers and Walton, Virginia; that there was no public highway between Vickers and Walton, and it was the only practicable way of travel for pedestrians between these two points, and was much traveled by people passing from one point to the other; that deceased was struck by a westbound passenger train, while a freight train was passing the deceased in an easterly direction. The engineer and fireman of the locomotive of the passenger train, who testified in behalf of plaintiffs, were the only witnesses who testified as to the manner in which deceased met his death. The engineer did not see deceased before he was killed. The fireman testified that when he first saw deceased, the latter was walking alongside of the freight train and on the ends of the ties supporting the rails upon which the passenger train was running, and that at that time deceased was about three hundred feet in front of the passenger engine, with his back to the same, facing and walking in the same direction in which the passenger train was going. The accident happened on a long \u201cstiff\u201d curve and the witness was prevented from seeing the deceased sooner because his view was cut off by the freight train.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nInsurance, \u00a7 667 \u2014when evidence insufficient to establish that insured exercised due diligence for his self-protection at time of death by train. In an action on a policy of insurance on the life of a person killed while walking on a railroad track, evidence held insufficient to establish that insured exercised due care for his own safety, within the terms of the policy.\nHe testified that it could not have been over five seconds from the time he first saw deceased until the latter was struck; that the east and westbound tracks were about five feet apart; that he had seen people step in safety between these tracks; that a cold wind was blowing at the time; that deceased appeared to be carrying his grip upon his back with his head bent over, and, apparently, had his hands in his pockets.\nBulkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellants.\nRyan & Condon, for appellee; Irvin I. Livingston and D. A. Callahan, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tovie and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 366,
  "last_page_order": 367
}