The Pa. Co. v. Stoelke

Citation1882 WL 10395,104 Ill. 201
PartiesTHE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANYv.JOHN H. STOELKE, Admr.
Decision Date27 September 1882
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. WILLARD & DRIGGS, for the appellant.

Mr. JOHN LYLE KING, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellee brought an action on the case, in the circuit court of Cook county, to recover for damages claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the employés of appellant in causing the death of appellee's intestate. The accident occurred in the yards of the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, situated between Harrison and Van Buren streets. There were eleven or twelve tracks in the yard, connected with the main track by switches, and it connects with most of the railroads in the city. Various companies were accustomed to run their cars into this yard, for the purpose of standing them on these tracks when not in use, and to make up their trains. Such companies used their own engines for the purpose of placing their cars in, and removing them from, the yard. On the approach of a train intended to be placed in the yard, a signal was given to the switchman in charge of the yard, and he opened a switch, and the cars were thrown into the yard on the desired track. He selected the track and admitted the cars. The Chicago and Alton company had possession and controlled the road, but permitted appellant to stand its cars on its tracks in the yard. On the forenoon of the 10th of October, 1879, the day of the accident, appellant brought two cars for admission to the yard, and, on being signaled, the switchman opened a switch and admitted them, they being driven by an engine of the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago railroad. The momentum they had acquired by the speed at which they were pushed when the engine was detached, drove them with sufficient force to start some cars standing on the track to which the incoming cars were admitted. It was the business of deceased to inspect cars placed on the track,--to see whether they required repairs,-- and he was at the time engaged in the performance of his duty, in inspecting the standing cars against which the cars were thrown by the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago engine. He was under the cars, and on their being started he was struck by them, and his neck was broken, and he was killed. He had placed no signal on the track to notify the switchman or any one else that he was engaged in the inspection of these cars. On the approach of the engine no signal was given, by the sound of a whistle or the ringing of a bell, nor does it appear that the incoming cars were under the control of a brakeman. No warning of any kind was given to deceased of the approach of the cars. The switchman had no knowledge that deceased was at or under the cars when he opened the switch to admit the cars when they were thrown on the track.

The jury found a verdict in favor of plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of deceased, and assessed the damages at $3000. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict. Defendant thereupon appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, and on a hearing the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, and the case is brought to this court on appeal, and a reversal is urged on several grounds. It is urged that the court erred in rejecting proper evidence offered by appellant, and in giving instructions for appellee. A witness was asked as to what was the custom in letting cars into the yard on tracks, and permitting them to run against standing cars, but the court refused to permit the question to be answered. We can see no objection to this question. It was proper, as, had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Eisentrager v. Great N. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 13, 1916
    ......W. 505;Auld v. Railway, 136 Ga. 266, 71 S. E. 426, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 518; Brassell's Case, 84 N. Y. 242; Wood's Case, 49 Mich. 370, 13 N. W. 779; Fuller's Case, 21 Conn. 576; Schultz's Case, 44 Wis. 638;Sutherland v. Railway, 74 Hun, 162, 26 N. Y. Supp. 237; Railway v. Stoelke, 104 Ill. 201;Railway v. Clark, 108 Ill. 113;Davis v. Corry, 153 Pa. 598, 26 Atl. 621;Eureka Insurance Co. v. Robinson, 56 Pa. 264; 1 Elliott, Ev., par. 109, resting on Shove's Case, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 558, 561; Vaugah's Case, 63 N. C. 11;Lynch v. Ashe, 8 N. C. 240. A large part of these hold, in ......
  • Eisentrager v. Great Northern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 13, 1916
    ......241; Wood v. Lake. Shore & M. S. R. Co., 49 Mich. 370, 372, 13 N.W. 779;. Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21 Conn. 557 at 576;. Schultz v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 44 Wis. 638;. Sutherland v. Troy & B. R. Co., 125 N.Y. 737, 74 Hun. 16, 26 N.Y.S. 237; Pennsylvania Co. v. Stoelke, 104. Ill. 201; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Clark, 108. Ill. 113; Davis v. City of Corry (Pa.), 26 A. 621;. Eureka Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 56 Pa. 256, at 264; 1. Elliott Ev., Sec. 109, resting on Shove v. Wiley, 35. Mass. 558, 18 Pick. 558, 561; Vaughan v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 63 ......
  • Alcorn v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1891
    ......459; Ins. Co. v. Knight, 6. Wharton, 327; Dennis v. Barber, 6 S. & R. 420. (7) It is the duty of the servant to learn the rules which. have been adopted by the master for his government and safety. either for his own protection or the safety of its employes. Pa. Co. v. Stoelke, 104 Ill. 201; Seese v. Railroad, 39 F. 487; Aldrich v. Monroe, 60 N.H. 118; Railroad v. Langdon, 92 Pa. St. 21;. Sedgwick v. Railroad, 73 Iowa 158; Railroad v. Rozenzweig, 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 489. (8) The. rules and usages of the company need not be pleaded; they are. mere ......
  • Chicago & E.R. Co. v. Hamerick
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 28, 1911
    ......Co. v. Coyer, Adm'r, 163 Ind. 631-637, 72 N. E. 875;Stalcup, etc., v. L., N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 16 Ind. App. 584-590, 45 N. E. 802;Syndicate Imp. Co. v. Bradley, 6 Wyo. 171, 43 Pac. 79-84, 44 Pac. 60;Reese v. Hershey, 163 Pa. 253, 29 Atl. 907, 43 Am. St. Rep. 795;Pennsylvania Co. v. Stoelke, Adm'r, 104 Ill. 201-204;Clark, Adm'x, v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 77 App. Div. 284, 79 N. Y. Supp. 220;Daley v. American Printing Co., 152 Mass. 581, 26 N. E. 135.         [5] For the reason above stated, and on the authority cited, we hold that the trial court did not err in overruling the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT