Elgin, J.&E. Ry. Co. v. Hoadley

• Decision Date: 11 April 1906
• Citation: 220 Ill. 462,77 N.E. 151
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO. v. HOADLEY.

220 Ill. 462

77 N.E. 151

ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO.

v.HOADLEY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1906.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1906.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District.

Action by Bella B. Hoadley, as administratrix of the estate of George E. Hoadley, deceased, against the Elgin, Joliett & Eastern Railway Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. L. O'Donnell and T. F. Donovan (Knapp, Haynie & Campbell, of counsel), for appellant.

Donahoe, McNaughton & McKeown, for appellee.

This was an action on the case, brought in the circuit court of Will county by Bella B. Hoadley, as administratrix of the estate of George E. Hoadley, deceased, against the Elgin, Joliett & Eastern Railway Company, appellant, to recover for the death of said George E. Hoadley, which was caused by one of appellant's switch engines at the crossing of appellant's railroad tracks and Maple street, just outside the corporate limits of the city of Joliet. The declaration, as originally filed, consisted of one count. Four additional counts were afterwards filed. The first two of the additional counts charged negligence on the part of appellant in failing to ring a bell or blow a whistle on the engine, and in failing to keep the bell ringing or the whistle sounding, as required by section 68 of chapter 114 of Hurd's Revised Statutes of 1903. These are the only counts necessary to be referred to here. Appellant filed the general issue and a trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict for $4,000 in favor of appellee. After overruling a motion for a new trial, the court entered judgment upon the verdict. Appellant appealed to the Appellate Court for the Second District, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, and now prosecutes a further appeal to this court.

Appellee's intestate received the injuries which resulted in his death where the tracks cross Maple street, in the southern part of appellant's switchyards, outside the corporate limits of the city of Joliet. That street is one of the principal highways leading into Joliet. The tracks were 14 in number. There was a space about 17 feet in width between two of these tracks, near the middle of the intersection. In this space were located two poles, one on the north side of the highway and the other on the south side, between the tops of which was extended a cable which supported an electric arc lamp. This cable was almost parallel with the railroad tracks. The poles and lamp belonged to the Economy Light & Power Company of Joliet and were parts of its electric lighting system. The lamp could, by means of a windlass located on the pole on the north side of the highway, be lowered to the ground for the purpose of changing the carbons or repairing or cleaning the lamp, and could then, by means of the windlass, be raised to a sufficient height above the ground so as not to interfere with travel on the highway. When the lamp was lowered to the ground it was a little more than 7 feet from the east rail of the track next west of it and about 10 feet from the west rail of the track next east of it. Hoadley had been attending to this lamp for the Economy Light & Power Company, as an employé, for about five months prior to the time he was injured. His duties required him to lower the lamp each day for the purpose of changing the carbons, which is referred to as ‘trimming the lamp.’ On February 4, 1902, between 8 and 9 o'clock in the forenoon, he lowered the lamp to trim it. While he was thus engaged, two engines attached to a freight train stood on the crossing on the track next east of him. He performed his work while standing on the west side of the lamp. Shortly before he was injured one of these engines discharged a large quantity of steam, which enveloped him so that he could not be seen by persons near by. The entire crossing for some time was obscured by the steam escaping from the engine. While the crossing was in this condition, a switch engine drawing a train of freight cars and belonging to appellant came out of the yards from the north upon the track immediately west of Hoadley, and approached the Maple street crossing at the rate of about eight miles an hour, without ringing a bell or sounding a whistle, as the evidence tends to show. When it reached a point on the crossing near the lamp it struck Hoadley, inflicting the injuries from which he died.

At the close of all the evidence in the case the defendant offered, and the court refused, an instruction directing the jury to return a verdict finding the defendant not guilty. The refusal of this instruction is assigned as error. The only other ground urged for reversal is the action of the circuit court in giving appellee's first instruction.

SCOTT, J. (after stating the facts).

The peremptory instruction offered by appellant at the close of all the evidence in the case presents the question whether there is in this record any evidence which, with the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, is sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Swift, 213 Ill. 307, 72 N. E. 737;Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Co. v. Otstot, 212 Ill. 429, 72 N. E. 387. There is evidence in the record to the effect that Hoadley, on the morning of February 4, 1902, was engaged in trimming the lamp, in the space between two of appellant's railroad tracks, at the crossing of those tracks with Maple street; that while he was so engaged one of appellant's engines, which was standing immediately east of him at a distance of only 10 feet, discharged large quantities of steam; that this steam covered the crossing, and was so dense as to prevent persons...