33 Ill.App. 405 (Ill.App. 1889), Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Parker

Citation:33 Ill.App. 405
Opinion Judge:GARY, J.
Party Name:LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SARAH A. PARKER, EXECUTRIX, ETC
Attorney:Mr. PLINY B. SMITH, for appellant. Messrs. JOHN MCGAFFEY and JOHN T. RICHARDS, for appellee.
Judge Panel:GARY, J. JUDGE GARNETT takes no part in this decision.
Court:Court of Appeals of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 405

33 Ill.App. 405 (Ill.App. 1889)

LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

v.

SARAH A. PARKER, EXECUTRIX, ETC

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District

March, 1889

July 2, 1889, Opinion Filed

Page 406

[Syllabus Material]

Page 407

[Syllabus Material]

Page 408

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. FRANK BAKER, Judge, presiding.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. PLINY B. SMITH, for appellant.

There are few cases in the books involving accidents of this kind, thus indicating either that a disregard of signals by railroad employes is exceedingly rare, or else that injuries received as the result of such disregard are by common consent regarded as without remedy.

The duty to watch for signals has been carried so far that the Supreme Court of Michigan recently decided, that if a traveler upon the highway drove upon a railway crossing in disregard of the sign-board giving notice of the track, he is guilty of such negligence as to preclude recovery for an injury received from a collision upon the crossing. Potter v. F. & P. M. R. R. Co., 28 N.W. 714.

Chief Justice Campbell, in delivering the opinion, says: The sign-board was in plain sight for a long distance, and admonished them that there was a crossing before them. If they didn't see it they were in fault for not doing so. No plainer warning can be devised, and no reason is given, nor is it imaginable why they didn't stop, or in any way act upon it."

* * * *

"If men do not choose to heed what they ought to heed, they must bear the consequences. It is the duty of all highway travelers to keep a due lookout. There may be some conflict upon other points, but upon the plaintiff's gross negligence there is no conflict."

In Morse v. Duncan (U. S. Cir. Court, S.D. Miss.), 8 Am. & E. R. R. Cases, 374, it is held that it is the duty of an engineer to watch for a signal, and stop at a flag station, and if the train does not stop on such signal the person so prevented from taking the train at that point may recover damages.

In Lombard v. C., R.I. P. R. R. Co., 47 Iowa 494, it was held that where a handcar overtook and collided with another handcar going in the same direction upon the same track, that the employes upon the former handcar were guilty of negligence in not observing and obeying the signals to stop given by those upon the latter.

In the case of C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ill. 376, which arose out of a collision between a train on the track of the C. & N. W. Ry. Co. and a train on the track of the C., M. & St. P. Co., on account of a misunderstanding concerning the signal by which the passage of trains on both roads over the crossing was regulated, the C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. asked an instruction to the effect that if the semaphore signal was given to its train to proceed, and make the crossing, and was not given to the train of the C. & N. W. Ry. Co., the jury should find for the C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. This instruction was refused. It was contended on the trial that the signal man gave the proper signal to the train on the St. Paul road to cross, and that the engineer on the Northwestern train negligently failed to observe such signal, and undertook to make the crossing in disregard of it.

The court in its opinion say: "There was evidence introduced on the trial tending to prove that after the westbound train...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP