Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Blaul

• Decision Date: 24 October 1898
• Citation: 175 Ill. 183,51 N.E. 895
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. BLAUL

175 Ill. 183

51 N.E. 895

CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

v.BLAUL

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1898.

Appeal from appellate court, Second district.

Action by Elizabeth Blaul against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. From a judgment of the appellate court affirming a judgment for plaintiff (70 Ill. App. 518), the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

George S. House, for appellant.

Donahoe & McNaughton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellate court, speaking through Mr. Justice CRABTREE, in deciding this case delivered the following opinion:

‘This was an action on the case, brought by appellee, to recover damages for injuries sustained by her in consequence of a collision with one of appellant's trains of cars, which came in contact with a buggy in which appellee was riding, at the intersection of appellant's railway tracks with Fifth avenue, in the city of Joliet. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $5,000. This court is asked to reverse the judgment upon the sole ground that the evidence does not show appellee was in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety at the time of the accident which caused her injury. It appears from the evidence that on December 8, 1894, appellee left her home, in Chicago, in company with her husband and infant child, and proceeded to Joliet, over appellant's railroad. On arriving at the station in Joliet, the party were met there by appellee's brother, Dennis Van Garvin, and one William Smith, who had in waiting a light spring wagon, for the purpose of conveying the visitors to Van Garvin's home, about two miles southeast from Joliet. Appellant's railway at Joliet crosses Fifth avenue nearly at right angles, and at the street crossing it has three tracks, the easterly track being the south-bound main, the one next west the north-bound main, and the westerly track being what is known as a side track. When the party started for Van Garvin's home, there were seated in the light wagon Van Garvin and Smith upon the front seat, the former sitting on the right-hand side, and driving, while the rear seat was occupied by appellee, with her babe in her arms, and her husband sitting beside her, and a small boy sat in the wagon box behind the rear seat. Proceeding in this manner easterly along Fifth avenue, the party came to the right of way of appellant's railroad, and as they reached that point a long freight train, consisting of about forty box cars, was then being drawn over the Fifth avenue crossing in a northerly direction, along the north-bound main track. Van Garvin, who was still driving, brought his horse to a standstill, and waited for this freight train to pull across the street, and about the time the caboose or rear car reached the north sidewalk, seeing nothing to prevent his going forward, and there being no gates closed or flagman at the crossing to give notice or warning of danger, he started his horse towards home, when, just as he reached the easterly or south-bound main track, and was in the act of crossing, a train, consisting of an engine and seven or eight flat cars, bore down upon them at a rapid rate of speed from the north, striking the wagon in which appellee was riding, throwing the occupants of the vehicle a distance of some twenty or twenty-five feet, and inflicting upon the person of appellee serious injuries.

‘It is frankly admitted by counsel for appellant that under the ordinances of the city of Joliet it was the duty of appellant to have a flagman at the crossing, and that one is usually on duty there, but that at the particular time of this accident he had left his post on some other business, and was then absent from his place of duty; and counsel concedes that this was negligence on the part of appellant, but he contends...