Chicago v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8138,63 Ill. 167 |
| Parties | CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.DAVID WILSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.
This was an action on the case by David Wilson, against appellant, for a personal injury from a train of appellant's cars, whereby he lost his right hand. The declaration charged that the accident was caused by the negligent and insufficient manner in which the platform was built. Trial and verdict for $14,000. Motion for new trial, which was granted. At the second trial the verdict was for $8000. Motion for new trial, which was overruled.
Messrs. WILLIAMS & BURR, for the appellant.
Mr. GEO. H. ESTABROOK, and Messrs. WELDON & BENJAMIN, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action on the case brought by appellee, in the McLean circuit court, against appellant, to recover for injuries inflicted on the person of appellee. On the 29th of October, 1869, appellee was, whilst standing on a platform at the station at Lexington, struck by a train of cars. The platform had been constructed by appellant for the convenience of passengers in approaching and leaving the trains on appellant's road, and was situated between the main track and a switch track. The platform was also used by the road in taking care of baggage, mail and express matter received and discharged at that station. At the time the accident occurred the passenger trains passed each other at that station, and such had been the case for some weeks previously. The platform was about 100 feet in length and 5 feet 4 inches in width. The time for the arrival of the trains was the same. In passing where the train coming from the north reached the south end of the switch, it was opened and the train ran in and stopped opposite the depot; and after receiving passengers, baggage and mails, it passed out of the switch and went south.
Appellee, after purchasing a ticket for the train going south, with a friend passed over the main track to the platform for the purpose of passing to the train which was approaching, and whilst either standing or walking slowly on the platform, was struck and injured by the train coming from the south. When the trains stood side by side of each other, there was between the coaches about 2 feet 4 inches of clear space in the middle of the platform, the projection of the coaches covering about 18 inches on each side. Appellee was not familiar with the locality, this being the first time he was ever there, nor was he aware that the trains passed each other at that place. When struck, appellee was waiting for the passengers to alight from the train upon which he expected to take passage, and his back was towards the approaching train. The company had provided no other means of leaving and approaching their passenger trains on the side track than by this platform, and persons desiring to go south had no other access from the depot building except by approaching it over this narrow platform. It does not seem that there was in practice any regularity in the mode of passing; sometimes one would pass out first, at other times the other, and on other occasions both would pass out at the same time.
After receiving the injury appellee was taken to a hotel close by, and his right hand being badly mangled it was amputated. For some days his life was believed to be in danger. He was unable to attend to his business for about six months after receiving the injury, and expended, as the evidence shows, about $1000 in paying physicians' bills, medicines, board and nurses. His occupation is that of a teacher of music, and the proof tends to show that he earned about $200 per month, and that he is less successful since his injury; and he is under the necessity of hiring an assistant. These are the material facts developed on the trial. The case was twice tried by the court and a jury, the first trial resulting in a verdict of $14,000; the latter in $8000, upon which judgment was rendered.
Railroad companies are required to use all reasonable precautions for the safety of the traveling public, whether in the construction and operation of their engines and coaches, or the erection of their depots, the construction of their tracks or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aliotta v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
...at a regular stopping place and approving a "safe place to board and alight" jury instruction)). See also Chi. & Alton R.R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167, 171, 1872 WL 8138 (1872) (calling the railroad company "guilty of reckless and wanton carelessness" for constructing a narrow island platfo......
-
The Chicago v. Lycurgus K. Avery.
......& N. W. R. R. Co. v. Swett, 45 Ill. 197; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Welch, 52 Ill. 183; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Pondrom, 51 Ill. 333; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167; St. L. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 78 Ill. 197; Goodfellow v. R. R. Co. 106 Mass. 462; Ford v. F. R. R. Co. 110 Mass. 260; Porter v. H. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 162. He was not bound to guard against remote possibilities of danger, in the absence of any notice of present peril: ......
-
Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co.
......July 2, 1974. Rehearing Denied July 25, 1974. [21 Ill.App.3d 48] . Page 497. Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, for defendant-appellant. Corrigan, Mackay, Quetsch & O'Reilly, Wheaton, for plaintiff-appellee. THOMAS J. MORAN, ... (C. & A.R.R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167, 173 (1872).) This is still the law. (Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., supra.) Whether the common . Page 500. law also provides this relief to ......
-
James v. Johnson
......& C. U. R. R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509; G. & C. U. R. R. Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 264; T. P. & W. R'y Co. v. Foster, 43 Ill. 415; Owen v. Chicago, 10 Bradwell, 465; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 8 Bradwell, 140; Gilman v. Bailey, 7 Bradwell, 349; St. L. A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Pflugmacher, 9 ...v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; Chicago West Div. R'y Co. v. Hughes, 69 Ill. 170; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 Ill. 226; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 63 Ill. 167; N. L. Packet Co. v. Binninger, 70 Ill. 167. It was not necessary to prove any damages: Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 469; ......