Chicago v. Dickson
Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
Parties | CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD CO.v.URIAH W. DICKSON. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Fulton county; the Hon. C. L. HIGBEE, Judge, presiding.
Mr. S. CORNING JUDD, for the appellant.
Messrs. SHOPE & GRAY, for the appellee.
This was an action on the case by appellee against appellant to recover damages for injuries sustained, as it is claimed, for the wanton and malicious misconduct of the employees of the company. It appears that appellee was entering the village of Prairie City in a two horse buggy. The road upon which he was traveling was parallel with and near to the railroad track. After he had passed the whistling post a short distance a passenger train came up the track in his rear, going in the same direction he was traveling in his buggy. On arriving at the whistling post witnesses for appellee testified that the engine driver gave the usual sound of the whistle, and, after it had stopped, he again commenced to whistle, with short, sharp and shrill sounds, which alarmed appellee's horses; they commenced to run and became unmanageable from fright, and overset his buggy, which was broken, threw him and his wife out, and he was seriously and permanently injured.
On the trial in the court below, the jury found a verdict for appellant and assessed his damages at $1000. Upon which the court below, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment, and the company bring the record to this court by appeal, and ask a reversal.
In the case of the Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. Harrison, 47 Ill. 298, this court held that, where the servants of a railway company, whilst in the discharge of their duties, perverted the appliances of the company to wanton and malicious purposes, to the injury of others, the company would be liable for resulting injuries. In that case it was claimed, and the jury found that the engine driver wantonly or negligently permitted steam to escape just as the plaintiff was crossing the railroad track, so as to frighten his team, which ran and injured him, and that was held to render the company liable for the injury. So in this case it is averred, and the jury have found, that the whistle was wantonly and maliciously sounded so as to frighten appellee's horses, whereby the injury was sustained. And if the verdict is sustained by the evidence, that case must control this.
Appellant's horses did not become frightened by the usual and proper signal given at the whistling post. It was the unusual, short, sharp and shrill sounds of the whistle which alarmed and caused them to run. The evidence clearly shows that there was nothing on the track that required such a sound of the whistle; and the evidence of appellee shows that the sound was the alarm used to frighten stock, and not such as is usually employed as the warning at a road crossing, or on approaching a station. Appellee's witnesses testify that it was unusually energetic and harsh, and highly calculated to alarm stock. When we can see that there was nothing in front of the train on the track requiring such an alarm, and when the ordinary sound of the whistle or the ringing of the bell would fully have complied with the requirements of the law, and there was no necessity for such an alarm as was given, and when all of the evidence is considered, although it was conflicting, we are of the opinion that the jury was warranted in finding that the conduct of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henderson v. Coleman
...... R. Co., 55 Mo. 201; Malecek v. R. Co., 57 Mo. 17; Hopkins v. R. Co., 36 N.H. 9; Mfg. Co. v. Holdfoot, 86 Ill. 459; R. Co. v. Dickson, 63. Ill. 151; R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 353; R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395; Quigley v. R. Co., 11. Nev. 364; Bowler v. Lane, 3 Met. ......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
......Railway v. Harmon, 47 Ill. 298, 95 Am. Dec. 489; Railway v. Dickson, 63 Ill. 151, 14 Am. Rep. 114; Akridge v. Railway, 90 Ga. 233, 16 S. E. 81; Railway v. Triplett, 54 Ark. 289, 15 S. W. 831, 16 S. W. 266; Cobb ......
-
Haehl v. The Wabash Railroad Company
......570. (2) The demurrer to the. evidence was properly overruled. Otis Co. v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 622; Brill v. Eddy, 22 S.W. 488; Dickson v. Waldron, 34 N.E. 506; Railroad. v. Harris, 122 U.S. 597; Redding v. Railroad, 3 S.C. 1;. Railroad v. Dickson, 63 Ill. 151; Perkins v. ......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
...... general rule is supported by an array of authority. Railway v. Harmon, 47 Ill. 298, 95 Am. Dec. 489;. Railway v. Dickson, 63 Ill. 151, 14 Am. Rep. 114;. Akridge v. Railway, 90 Ga. 233, 16 S.E. 81;. Railway v. Triplett, 54 Ark. 289, 15 S.W. 831, 16. S.W. 266; ......