Chicago v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5473,52 Ill. 451 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANYv.JAMES B. DUNN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of trespass on the case, brought by James B. Dunn, against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroad company, to recover for injuries to the person of the plaintiff caused by the alleged negligence of the servants of the defendants. It appears from the record, that while the plaintiff, with one Marvin R. Dunn, was riding in a wagon, drawn by a pair of mules, across the track of defendants' road, the mules became greatly frightened at the sounding of the whistle on defendants' engine, which was standing at the side of the crossing, and while thus frightened and in consequence thereof, turned suddenly around, overturned the wagon, and threw the plaintiff violently upon the ground, spraining his ankle. The jury returned a verdict for $1525, and judgment was entered thereon. To reverse this judgment defendants appealed.
Messrs. LANPHERE & PRICE and Mr. A. M. CRAIG, for the appellants.
Mr. J. DOUGLAS and Messrs. KITCHELL & ARNOLD, for the appellee.
Upon the question whether the employees of the railway company were really guilty of carelessness, the testimony was conflicting, and the verdict can not be set aside as unsustained by the evidence. But we reverse the judgment because of the excessive damages. In any view that may be taken of the case, it is one for compensatory and not punitive, damages, the only fault chargeable upon the appellants, being that the engineer blew his whistle when too near the mules, although at a time and place when and where it was customary to blow it. The mules and wagon did not belong to the plaintiff, and the only injury to him was a sprained ankle. The physicians testify that he would have recovered from the sprain in five or six weeks, if he had taken proper care of his ankle, but this he did not do. The day after the accident he went from the house where he lived to Warren county, in a buggy, a distance of six miles, returning the same day, and when advised to bandage his ankle, said he could not keep quiet as he had work to do. The consequence was his ankle swelled, and he went on crutches for three or four weeks, but he testifies he was not long confined to the house. He also testified, that at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
... ... In Dunn v. R. R., 124 N. C. 257, 32 S. E. 712, it is said, citing authorities: " 'Although a railroad company is not liable under ordinary circumstances ... ...
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
... ... frighten horses, the corporation is responsible for any ... damages resulting therefrom. In Dunn v. R. R., 124 ... N.C. 257, 32 S.E. 712, it is said, citing authorities: ... "'Although a railroad company is not liable under ... ordinary ... ...
-
The Vill. of Gibson v. Johnson
...there can be no recovery: Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Benton, 69 Ill. 174; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 Ill. 333; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 451; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffitt, 67 Ill. 431; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 ......
-
Chicago & Erie Railway Company v. Cummings
...166; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt, supra; Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Clarke, 35 Neb. 867, 53 N.W. 970, 23 L. R. A. 504; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 451. Many other cases might be cited, but the rule is so established that it would be useless. Counsel for appellant have cited u......