Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Rayburn

• Decision Date: 30 October 1894
• Citation: 153 Ill. 290,38 N.E. 558
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. RAYBURN.

153 Ill. 290

38 N.E. 558

CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

v.RAYBURN.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 30, 1894.

Appeal from appellate court, Third district.

Action on the case by William K. Rayburn against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. 82 Ill. App. 277. Defendant appeals. Reversed.William Brown and Williams & Capen, for appellant.

Calvin Rayburn (Owen T. Reeves, of counsel), for appellee.

BAKER, J.

This is an action on the case, instituted by appellee against appellant in the circuit court of McLean county, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of appellant. At the November term, 1892, of said court, the cause was tried before a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of appellee, and assessed his damages at $2,000. At the succeeding February term, appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the damages assessed by the jury, together with interest and costs. Upon appeal to the appellate court for the Third district, that judgment was affirmed.

The amended declaration charged, in substance, that on April 23, 1891, appellee became a passenger on a freight train, as a groom for a stallion being transported from Bloomington to Eldorado, Kan.; that when the train stopped at Tallula, an intermediate station, he was ordered by appellant's servants to alight from the caboose, and pass along the train, between the main track and the side track, to the car in which was the stallion, for the purpose of closing the car door, which, through some defect in its condition, had not been closed, and that, while appellee and appellant's servants were endeavoring to close the door, another train of appellant was run in upon the switch, in a negligent manner, at a high rate of speed; that there was a space of only eight feet between the side and main track; and that about the time the train came in upon the side track the train on which appellee was a passenger started out, and in returning along the space between the two trains, to his caboose, he was struck and injured.

Complaint is made by appellant of all the instructions given by the trial court on behalf of appellee. The objections urged, however, are without merit, except as to the ninth instruction. That instruction was clearly erroneous. It was as follows: ‘The court instructs the jury that plaintiff was rightfully upon the space between defendant's tracks at the time the injury complained of occurred, and he had a right to rely upon the directions, if any, given him by defendant's servants in charge of the train, unless he knew he would, in obeying said instructions, recklessly expose his person to danger; and if you find from the evidence that plaintiff was injured because of the negligence of the defendant in handling its trains while the...