Chicago & E.I.R. Co. v. Donworth

• Decision Date: 16 June 1903
• Citation: 203 Ill. 192,67 N.E. 797
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO. et al. v. DONWORTH.

203 Ill. 192

67 N.E. 797

CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO. et al.

v.DONWORTH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1903.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by Jeremiah Donworth against the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for plaintiff (105 Ill. App. 400), defendants appeal. Reversed.Pam, Calhoun & Glennon (W. H. Lyford, of counsel), for appellants.

John C. King and William J. King (Andrew J. Hirschl, of counsel), for appellee.

BOGGS, J.

The appellee, at about the hour of 8:15 a. m. June 22, 1897, at a point in the city of Chicago where Twenty-Sixth street, which runs east and west, crosses eight railroadtracks running north and south, while attempting to cross one of the said tracks (that of the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad), was struck by an engine drawing a south-bound passenger train operated by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, and received injuries to his person, for which, in an action against the appellant companies, brought in the superior court of Cook county, he was, on a hearing before the court and a jury, awarded a judgment in the sum of $5,000. On an appeal prosecuted by the appellant companies to the Appellate Court for the First District, error was found in the record, to avoid the effect whereof the appellee, by leave of the court, entered a remittitur in the sum of $2,000, and the judgment was affirmed of the sum of $3,000, the remainder. A further appeal has been perfected to this court.

The case, as claimed by the appellee, was that he was walking eastwardly on the south side of Twenty-Sixth street, and approached the railroad tracks from the west; that his view of the railroad tracks to the north was obstructed by a building which stood on the north side of Twenty-Sixth street, and also by a number of cars standing on tracks west of that on which the train was moving; that the gates which were placed for the purpose of being lowered across Twenty-Sixth street when a train was approaching that crossing had not been let down; that neither the whistle was sounded nor bell rung upon the engine; and that the train was running at the speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour. On the contrary, the appellants claimed that the appellee was walking westward on the south side of Twenty-Sixth street, and therefore approached the railroad tracks from the east; that there was nothing to obstruct his view of the approaching train; that the gates had been lowered across Twenty-Sixth street; that the tower bell was ringing, and that appellee walked around the end of one of the gates, and passed over the four tracks belonging to the Pittsburg,Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railroad, across an intervening space of 15 feet, and thence on and across the easternmost track of the appellant the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad, then across a second intervening space, and to and upon a second track of said appellant road, and was there struck by the engine, and that the bell in the gate tower and the bell on the engine were ringing during all the time he was making his way over these railroad tracks; that it was a clear day, and the sun was shining brightly, and the advancing train was in full and open view; and that the speed of the train was within the rate allowed by the ordinances of the city.

On these controverted questions there was a radical and irreconcilable conflict in the evidence. The preponderance in point of number of witnesses was not with the appellee. One crossing these railroad tracks from the west, going eastward, as appellee claimed he was going, would present the left side of his body to a locomotive which was approaching from the north. The right side of the appellee's head and body and his right arm and right leg were injured, and the left side of his body, head, left leg, and left arm were uninjured, which fact tended to support the testimony in behalf of the appellant companies that the appellee was passing across the tracks from the east toward the west. Where the evidence upon which the recovery of a judgment is sought is slight or doubtful, the rulings of the court upon questions of the admissibility of evidence will be strictly scrutinized by a court of review, and the judgment reversed if any inaccuracy has occurred in such rulings which may have operated to the prejudice of the losing party. This is a familiar rule, which has been often repeated in this court.

One ground of negligence relied upon to authorize a recovery was that an ordinance of the city of Chicago restricted the speed of passenger trains at the crossing of Twenty-Sixth street to 20 miles per hour, and that the train which struck the appellee was moving at the rate of 25 or 30 miles per hour, in violation of the ordinance. One O'Neil, a brother-in-law of the appellee, testified that the train was...