Chicago v. Engle

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 84 Ill. 397,1877 WL 9397
• Parties: CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD CO.v.MILEM M. ENGLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

84 Ill. 397

1877 WL 9397 (Ill.)

CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD CO.

v.MILEM M. ENGLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1877.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. N. W. BRANSON, for the appellant.

Messrs. MORRISON, WHITLOCK & LIPPINCOTT, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case has been before us on two previous occasions. But, on the first, the judgment was reversed because erroneous instructions had been given, and on the next the judgment was again reversed, because improper instructions were given by the circuit court on the trial. These objections not existing in this record, we shall proceed to determine whether the evidence sustains the finding of the jury. In the view we take of the case, we regard it unnecessary to discuss the meaning of the ordinance read in evidence. There was a count in the declaration, not on the ordinance, but for a common law liability, for negligence. That an action on the case may be maintained for injury sustained, arising from negligence in operating railway trains, independent of statutory enactment, is undeniably true. The question then arises, whether the evidence shows the company were guilty of such negligence as renders them liable under the common law.

It has been repeatedly said by this court, that such bodies, in exercising their franchises and operating their roads, must be held to the observance of reasonable care and precaution; that in passing over and through great and populous thoroughfares and localities, they must be held to a higher degree of care than in places where but few people are found; that their caution and diligence must be commensurate with the known danger of the situation; that regard for human life and safety demands a degree of care in proportion to the danger of operating their cars in the various localities over which they run; that in a populous city, town, or a place where persons resort in great numbers, a greatly higher degree of care is required than in the country, or at places where people seldom resort or are found. The same is true in regard to stock running at large. Where they are properly on the commons, and the fact is known to the operatives of such roads, they must be held to a higher degree of care than where they have their roads fenced, and have no reason to expect stock will be found on their track. In villages of this character it would be impracticable to fence their roads, and they, and all others, know that persons are passing at all hours of the day and night. They also know that stock usually are permitted to run at large on the streets and vacant spaces in such villages. Hence they must be charged with a higher degree of care at such places than...