Chicago v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Parties: CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.JULIUS JACOBS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

63 Ill. 178

1872 WL 8141 (Ill.)

CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY

v.JULIUS JACOBS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1872.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. JOHN A. MCCLERNAND, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case brought by Jacobs against the railroad company, to recover of the latter damages for a personal injury to the former, occasioned by the alleged negligence of the railroad company. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff of $2500. To reverse this judgment the defendant appeals.

Messrs. HAY, GREENE & LITTLER, for the appellant.

Messrs. STUART, EDWARDS & BROWN, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

The negligence imputed to the defendant in this case is, in not ringing a bell or sounding a whistle for the required distance, and in running its train at too high a rate of speed. There is no question that the whistle was sounded so as to give notice to persons in the vicinity of the road crossing of the approach of the train, and to lead men engaged there with teams and otherwise, except Jacobs, to take proper precautions for their safety.

As to whether the whistle was sounded or the bell rung for the prescribed distance of 80 rods, the evidence was somewhat contradictory. The rate of speed seems to have been from twelve to twenty miles an hour through the village of Broadwell, a place of three or four hundred inhabitants. But whatever the negligence in those respects which the evidence discloses on the part of the defendant, it exhibits such a degree of negligence in the plaintiff himself as, in our view, precludes his right of recovery.

A traveler along a public highway which crosses the track of a railroad, is held to the exercise of proper precaution to avoid injury upon the crossing, as well as the railroad company. In his approach to such crossing, it is incumbent on him to exercise care and caution by looking and listening for any train that may be approaching, so as to prevent the danger of a collision. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 Ill. 75; T., P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Riley, 47 Ill. 514; Beisiegel v. New York Central, 40 N. Y. 9; The North Penn. R. Co. v. Heileman, 49 Penn. 60.

The plaintiff came upon this crossing driving a wagon drawn by one horse, at about noonday. He was traveling on a public highway westward, intending to cross the track of the railroad in order to get to Elkhart. The highway crossed the railroad track at right angles. He came along it for a distance of some ten rods immediately eastward, with an unobstructed view of the railroad track for a long distance, with the exception that at one point the view was obstructed by a...