Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Walker

• Decision Date: 24 October 1905
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. WALKER.

217 Ill. 605

75 N.E. 520

CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

v.WALKER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District.

Action by Anna Sloan Walker against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. W. Brown, for appellant.

E. L. Clover, for appellee.

This is an action on the case, brought by appellee against the appellant, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of catching the heel of her shoe in a hole in the floor of appellant's depot at Braceville, Ill., causing her to fall out of the door onto the platform. On May 8, 1903, the appellee lived at Gardner, and purchased a round-trip ticket to Braceville for the purpose of visiting her brother. She intended to return to her home upon a train which left Braceville at 11:o2 p. m. Her brother and two little girls accompanied her to the depot, which they found dark and locked. The train which she expected to take stopped only upon signal, and her brother had taken a lantern for this purpose. Shortly after their arrival the village marshal came to the depot and unlocked the door of the waiting room with a key which he had in his possession. The party entered the room, and the marshal lit a lamp or lantern which was in the room. When the train whistled, the brother and the two children went out on the platform, and were followed by the appellee and the marshal. There was a hole in the floor of the waiting room, about two inches wide and several inches long, opposite and near the door, and as appellee passed out the heel of her left shoe caught in the hole, and she fell through the door to the platform and was injured. Upon a hearing before the court and a jury judgment was rendered in her favor for $4,000, which has been affirmed by the appellate court, from which order of affirmance this further appeal has been prosecuted.

WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

At the close of appellee's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, the defendant made motions to instruct the jury to find it not guilty, which were refused, and that ruling is assigned as error. As often said, the only question for our consideration under this assignment is whether or not there is any evidence at all in the record fairly tending to support the verdict. There is no substantial conflict in the testimony, which shows that on the morning of the accident appellee purchased a round-trip ticket from appellant's agent, as stated above. She used half of the ticket, and had the other half in her possession when she, her brother, and the children went to the depot. She was therefore at the depot rightfully as a passenger, and was entitled to all of the rights and privileges of the same. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rector, 104 Ill. 296;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Treat, 179 Ill. 576, 54 N. E. 290. The train did not stop at that station, except upon signal, and the depot was dark and the door locked. Her brother started to find the marshal, indicating that he knew how to get into the depot at that time, and that the officer had a key. How he knew this fact does not appear, nor is it material. The marshal came before he was found by the brother, and opened the door with the key which he had in his possession, as above stated. He testified that he received the key from his predecessor in office the 3d day of May of the same year, and that two or three days afterward he again received it from the station agent of the defendant. He was then asked what the agent said to him at the time the key was delivered to him, what his habit and custom was with reference to passengers waiting at the depot for this train, whether he was in the habit of opening and lighting the station for passengers before the day in question, and whether he received any compensation from the appellant for such services; but objections were sustained to all these questions. The station agent testified that he did not know the marshal had a key and he never had any conversation with him in reference to it, and that no arrangements were made by the defendant for passengers waiting for this train. He also testified that on at least two occasions during his service for the company he had seen light in the depot after he had closed and left it for the night, and he made no inquiries as to how these lights came to be there. He was asked if he did not state in a certain conversation that the marshal offered him the key on one...