Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Sweeney
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANYv.HONORA SWEENEY, Administratrix, etc. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. H. W. BLODGETT and Mr. GEORGE C. CAMPBELL, for the appellants.
Mr. M. F. HEENAN, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action on the case, brought to the Superior Court of Chicago, by Honora Sweeney, administratrix on the estate of Michael Sweeney, deceased, against the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company, to recover damages for their negligence, resulting in the death of Michael Sweeney.
The deceased was a track repairer, in the service of the Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railroad Company, whose switches and lines of road connect with those of appellants, and they use, in common, a curved track, known and called the “Galena Y,” by which trains are readily changed from one track to another.
It was at this “Y” the accident occurred, a place with which deceased was very familiar, having worked about it or near it for several years. It was a point where engines were constantly in motion, in greater number, perhaps, than at any other point on the continent. The ground is covered with railroad tracks, as the proof shows, and in constant use.
The deceased having been at work for two or three years, among these rails, knew it was a place full of dangers, demanding the keenest exercise of all one's faculties to escape them.
The proof is, that on the thirteenth day of December, 1867, deceased, with his shovel in hand, with a cap upon his head drawn closely down over his ears, and without looking to the right or left, or behind him, stepped upon the track of the Fort Wayne road, a few feet north of the point where the “Y” joins it, and while cars pushed by an engine were being backed over the “Y” on to the the track of the Fort Wayne road, and was run over and killed, deceased having his back to the car when it struck him.
That these facts show negligence on the part of the deceased, of the grossest character, cannot be questioned. The place was a very dangerous one, and, in proportion to the magnitude of the dangers, should have been his care and caution. Deceased manifested neither, but, in the most reckless manner, rendering nearly useless a most important faculty, at such a place, and not using another no less important, he lost his life.
The rule of the English courts, as well as of this country and of this court, in such cases, is well settled.
If a very high degree of care is required of strangers coming upon a railroad track, to avoid injury, as much, or more, should be demanded of one who is familiar with the place, and can not but know it is pregnant with danger. Neither can go recklessly upon the road, taking no proper precautions to avoid accidents.
The deceased appears to have been in a condition quite similar to that of Still, as reported in 19 Ill. 499. The party injured in that case was driving a two-horse wagon along a highway, crossed by a railroad track, and sitting down in the bottom of his wagon, with his back towards an approaching train, with his coat collar turned up, and a comforter about his neck. Any man of ordinary prudence, who would take the trouble, could see the approaching train, and could hear it if his sense of hearing was not obstructed. Under these circumstances, this court held that a person crossing a railroad track, who could have seen the cars approach, but turned his back to that direction, and had his ears so bandaged that he could not hear, was guilty of such negligence as would prevent his recovery for injuries, unless he can prove a greater degree of negligence on the part of the railroad company.
In the late case of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Gretzner, 46 ib. 74, this court said it was the duty of every person about to cross a railroad track, to approach it cautiously, and ascertain if there is present danger in crossing, as all such persons are bound to know that such an undertaking is dangerous, and they must take all proper precaution to avoid accidents in so doing, otherwise they could not recover for an injury thereby received. Both parties must use care.
But it is said by appellee, the railroad company was guilty of great negligence in not using the necessary precautions for the protection of persons about the tracks. Were they derelict in this regard? It is in proof that the switchman walked along the “Y” about sixty feet in advance of the train to see if the track was clear, and saw it was clear. While so doing, the deceased stepped on the track between him and the train, with his back to the train, it being backed up by an engine in the rear, and with his ears covered up by his cap. So soon as he was seen by the switchman, he shouted to him, but his ears being covered, the shout was not heard, or if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
... ... Brown, ... 37 Wash. 97, 79 P. 635, 68 L.R.A. 889, 107 Am.St.Rep. 798; ... Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616; ... Chicago, etc., R.R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 ... Sup.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979; Fayerweather v. Ritch, ... 195 U.S. 276, 25 Sup.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed. 193; ... 841, 97 ... C.C.A. 124; Railroad Co. v. Still, 19 Ill. 499, 71 ... Am.Dec. 236; Railroad Co. v. Jacobs, 20 Ill. 478; ... Railroad v. Sweeney, 52 Ill. 325; Railroad Co ... v. Johnson, 116 Ill. 206, 4 N.E. 381; Coal Co. v ... Abbott, 181 Ill. 495, 55 N.E. 131; Coal Co. v ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Sykes
... ... & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 315; T. W & W. R. R. Co. v. Spencer, 66 Ill. 528; T. W. & W. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Sweeney, 52 Ill. 325; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; P. D. R. R. Co. v. Mullins, 66 Ill. 526.That where the evidence is conflicting, the verdict will not be set aside, unless grossly against the evidence: Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Millikin v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill ... ...
-
Garland v. Chicago
... ... v. Jones, 76 Ill. 311; T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 71 Ill. 346; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500; C. &. R. I. R. R. Co. v. Still, 19 Ill. 500; C. & N. W. R'y Co. v. Sweeney, 52 Ill. 325; Peoria Bridge Asso'n v. Loomis, 20 Ill. 236; St. L. A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Manly, 58 Ill. 300; Bellefontaine R. R. Co. v. Hunter, 33 Ind. 364.Where plaintiff is guilty of negligence a recovery cannot be had unless the conduct of the defendant was such as showed a reckless disregard ... ...
-
The Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co. v. Sunderland
... ... Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 Ill. 510; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576; C. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Hart, 1 Chicago Law Jour. 301; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 72 Ill. 222; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Damerell, 81 Ill ... v. Becker, 76 Ill. 25; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 64 Ill. 510; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 74; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Sweeney, 52 Ill. 325; Wharton on Negligence, 300.An instruction on the part of the defendant, that as a matter of law the plaintiff cannot recover, ... ...