Galena & Chicago Union R.R. Co. v. Loomis

• Decision Date: 30 June 1852
• Citation: 56 Am.Dec. 471,1852 WL 4319,13 Ill. 548,3 Peck 548
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: GALENA & CHICAGO UNION RAILROAD COMPANYv.ABNER LOOMIS.

13 Ill. 548
1852 WL 4319 (Ill.)
56 Am.Dec. 471
3 Peck (IL) 548

GALENA & CHICAGO UNION RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
ABNER LOOMIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1852.

THIS cause was heard before H. T. DICKEY, judge, and a jury, at December term, 1851, of the Cook county court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the court below for $200. The railroad company prayed for and obtained the appeal. The facts of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.

J. H. COLLINS, for appellants, cited 11 East, 60; 21 Wend. 619; 5 Hill, 292; 6 id. 593; 1 Denio, 99; 5 id. 266; 4 Comstock, 358.

LARNED & WOODBRIDGE, for appellee, cited 2 Cushing, 539; General Railroad Law of 1849, secs.

[13 Ill. 549]

38, 39, 45; 7 Cowen, 585; Id. 349; 8 Mass. Rep. 445; 12 Pick. 184.

TRUMBULL, J.

This was an action of trespass on the case, brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the careless and improper management by the defendants of their railroad cars and locomotive engine. Plea, not guilty.

It appears, from the evidence, that in December, 1850, about 6 o'clock in the evening, the plaintiff was traveling in a wagon, drawn by two horses, near the railroad crossing on the turnpike leading west from Chicago; that the locomotive engine and cars of the defendants were at the same time going towards Chicago, and near the place where the roads cross; that the two roads run nearly parallel for a number of rods before they cross; that the defendants failed to ring a bell or sound a whistle as the train of cars approached the crossing; that the plaintiff drove across the railroad track immediately before and within a few feet of the locomotive; that his horses became frightened at the engine and cars, ran into the railroad ditch, upset the wagon, ran off, and were lost; and that the plaintiff himself was considerably bruised.

The jury returned a verdict of $200 against the defendants, and the plaintiff had judgment thereon.

At the request of the plaintiff, the court, among other instructions to the jury, gave the following:

“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendants omitted to ring a bell or sound a whistle, in the manner required by law, such omission constitutes a prima facie case of negligence, and the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the loss and damage proved to have been sustained by him, unless the defendants prove that such loss and damage were not occasioned by such omission.”

The defendants object to the...