Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Arnol

• Decision Date: 18 January 1893
• Citation: 144 Ill. 261,33 N.E. 204
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. ARNOL.

144 Ill. 261

33 N.E. 204

CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

v.ARNOL.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 18, 1893.

Appeal from appellate court, third district.

Action on the case, brought by Julia F. Arnol against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Williams & Capen and William Brown, for appellant.

Benjamin & Morrissey and W. B. Carlock, for appellee.

SHOPE, J.

This was an action by appellee to recover for personal injury alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the appellant company. A trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $2,500, upon which judgment was rendered, and which was on appeal affirmed in the appellate court. By its fourteenth instruction, appellant asked that the jury be instructed to return a verdict for defendant, which was refused. This ruling is, among other things, assigned for error, and will necessitate an examination of the record to see whether there was evidence dence tending to sustain plaintiff's right of recovery.

Appellant, at the time of the alleged injury, and for some months, at least prior thereto, had run on its road daily, from Bloomington, south, what was called an ‘Accommodation Train,’ consisting of a ‘caboose’ attached to its regular freight train, which left Bloomington between 5 and 6 o'clock P. M. The record shows this train accommodated very considerable local travel, and on the evening in question the caboose was well filled. The train consisted of 26 freight cars and the caboose; and the train crew, of an engineer, fireman, conductor, and two brakemen. Appellee took the train at Bloomington for Shirley, which was reached before nightfall. In approaching Shirley from the north, there is a gradual ascent until about the south end of the station platform, and then a descent, somewhat more rapid, for a considerable distance. Upon approaching Shirley a north-bound freight was found standing upon the main track, and the southbound train, on which appellee was a passenger, was required to take the siding. Upon nearing the switch the engineer ceased working steam, and slowed up, to permit the brakeman on the forward end of the train to run ahead and open the switch, which was done; and the train passed through upon the siding at a rate of speed, as the engineer testifies, not faster than a man could walk. The rear brakeman stepped from the caboose, where he seems to have been stationed, closed the switch after the train, and regained the caboose. The evidence tends to show the caboose stopped twice, the first time at the north end of the platform, or still further north, and then was jerked forward, and came to the final stop at the south end of the platform. Just where it stopped the first time, or how far the caboose ran between that stop and the final one, is in controversy. Appellee and other witnesses place the first stop at the north end of the platform, and the distance run between the stops about 30 feet. Other witnesses place it much further north, and the distance run much greater; some placing it as far as 250 feet. The first stop is variously described,-as momentary, for an instant, and as continuing for 10 or 15 seconds; and it is clear that no opportunity was then given for passengers to leave the train. Appellee testifies that upon the approach of the train to the station the brakeman called out, ‘Shirley, Shirley,’ in the usual manner of announcing the approach to the station. If the evidence of appellee and some other of the witnesses was credited, the jury were justified in finding that the caboose stopped at the north end of the station platform after the usual station signal and call had been given by the brakeman. Appellee testifies, in effect, that having heard the station announced in the usual manner, and observing the slowing up of the train, and its coming to a standstill at the station platform, she arose from her seat, with the intention of leaving the train, when instantly, and without warning, the caboose was jerked so violently forward that she was thrown down to the floor of the car, and seriously injured. Her head was thrown towards the rear of the caboose, and the passengers, who went immediately to her assistance, were thrown into confusion by the jar when the train came to the final stop. She was found to be insensible, and in that condition taken from the car. The engineer, thinking the siding south of the station too short to accommodate his train and let the caboose up to the platform, applied the air brakes, with which the first seven cars of the train were equipped; thereby permitting the forward brakeman to run ahead of the engine and open the south switch to let the engine out on the main track. The switch being opened, the engine pulled out on the main track, and again came to a full stop. The 19 freight cars back of the 7 equipped with the air brakes were permitted to run free; no break having been applied to any of them.

In this country it is the almost universal practice to announce the station which the train is approaching before it is reached, and while the train is still in motion; and it is universally understood that such announcement is intended as notice to passengers, without warning to the contrary, that the next stop of the train will be at the station announced. The purpose is understood to be to enable the passengers intending to alight at that station to be ready to leave the cars promptly, without undue haste or inconvenience to themselves, or unnecessary delay of the train. It is not to be expected that there will be the same particularity in drawing up to a station by a freight train as by a train devoted to passenger service. The great length and weight of such trains, and the appliances necessary in their operation, render them less easy to control. And so the public, presumably, understand, and conduct themselves accordingly. In this connection the errors assigned to the ruling of the court in refusing the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th instructions asked by the appellant may be considered. These instructions severally told the jury that no recovery could be had under the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th counts of the declaration. The 1st, 2d, and 3d counts allege that it was the duty of the defendant to safely carry plaintiff from Bloomington to Shirley, and there slacken the speed of its train with due care, and stop the same a reasonable time to enable the plaintiff to alight, etc., and that the defendant did not use care and diligence in slackening the speed of its train at Shirley, etc.; while the plaintiff was alighting therefrom, with due care, etc., caused the same to be suddenly and violently started forward, etc., whereby she was thrown down, etc., and injured. The fourth count varies the same charge, and alleges that ‘while the plaintiff, with the consent and permission of defendants, with due care,’ etc., ‘was arising from her seat to alight,’ etc., the defendant caused the train to be suddenly started, etc., whereby, etc.

The implied contract to carry safely necessarily includes the furnishing of reasonable opportunity to alight from the trainsafely at the end of the journey. Railroad Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147; Imhoff v. Railroad Co., 20 Wis. 362; Railroad Co. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228;Burrows v. Railway Co., 63 N. Y. 556;Dougherty v. Railway Co., 86 Ill. 467;Railway Co. v. Rector, 104 Ill. 296. Whether appellee was, under the circumstances shown, justified in assuming that it was the intention of those in charge of the train to discharge passengers for...