Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Frelka
Decision Date | 19 May 1884 |
Citation | 1884 WL 9904,110 Ill. 498 |
Parties | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.MICHAEL FRELKA. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
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. KIRK HAWES, Judge, presiding.
The two instructions, numbered one and nine, asked in behalf of the defendant below, and refused by the trial court, are as follows:
Mr. WILLIAM BARGE, for the appellant.
Messrs. BRANDT & HOFFMANN, for the appellee.
The present appeal brings before us for review a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District, affirming a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county, for $5000, lately recovered in that court in an action on the case, brought by Michael Frelka, the appellee, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, the appellant, on account of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the company in operating a switch engine.
The evidence in the case tends to prove that appellee, on the morning of the 18th of January, 1879, at the hour of six o'clock, or perhaps a little before, entered, by way of Randolph street, the depot grounds of the appellant and the Michigan Central Railroad Company, lying immediately south of the passenger depot of the two companies, situated on the west side of lake Michigan, in the city of Chicago, and that while attempting to cross the tracks of the defendant, to reach a caboose standing on the tracks of the Michigan Central company, he was struck, knocked down and dragged for a considerable distance by a switch engine of the appellant, breaking and crushing the ankle and thigh bones of his right leg, and otherwise seriously injuring him, whereby he was permanently disabled, so that he is now unable to get about, except on crutches. The depot grounds where the accident happened, were, at the time it occurred, and for many years before that time had been, in the joint occupancy, use and control of the appellant and the Michigan Central company, though each company had and operated its own tracks; but in doing so, the grounds in question, for the purpose of passing and repassing in the discharge of their duties, were open alike to the servants and employes of both companies. The greater portion of these grounds lie between Randolph street, on the north, and Monroe street, on the south, if extended eastwardly, the two streets being about 1250 feet apart. The employes of the two companies living in the city, generally went by way of one or the other of these streets to the depot grounds, and consequently entered them, in either case, from the west side, as the city lies altogether west of them. The track upon which the accident happened, as well as several others belonging to appellant, lies west of most of the tracks of the Michigan Central, including the one on which the caboose was standing, and which appellee was trying to reach when struck by the engine,--consequently, the employes of the Michigan Central company, coming from the city, in order to reach the tracks of the latter necessarily had to cross the appellant's tracks. The evidence also tends to show that the Michigan Central company, at the time of the accident, and for many years previous thereto, had in its employ a considerable force of men who worked at the stock yards, south of the depot grounds, but who lived in the city, and that it was the custom for them, every morning, a little...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crawford v. Kansas City Stock Yards Company
... ... 488; Railroad v. Thompson, 101 ... Ga. 27; Railroad v. Frelka, 110 Ill. 498; ... Railroad v. Hopkins, 200 Ill. 122; Gates v ... ...
-
Young v. Waters-Pierce Oil Company
...44 La. Ann. 692, 16 L. R. A. 43; Illingsworth v. Elec. Co., 161 Mass. 583, 25 L. R. A. 552; Railroad v. Dignan, 56 Ill. 487; Railroad v. Frelke, 110 Ill. 498; Dowell Guthrie, 99 Mo. 652; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 346; Lynds v. Clark, 14 Mo.App. 74; 21 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), pp. 460, 4......
-
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Vandenberg
...N. Y. 643, 20 N. E. 569, 8 Am. St. Rep. 793;Smith v. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 19 N. Y. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 305;Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Frelka, 110 Ill. 498; Pennsylvania Co. v. Gallagher, 15 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cas. 341; Gross v. Pennsylvania Co. (Sup.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 616;Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Easto......
-
Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company v. Vandenberg
... ... Co. (1859), 19 N.Y. 127, 75 Am. Dec. 305; Illinois ... Cent. R. Co. v. Frelka (1884), 110 Ill. 498; ... Pennsylvania Co. v ... ...