Chicago & W.I.R. Co. v. Doan

• Decision Date: 21 February 1902
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & W. I. R. CO. v. DOAN.

195 Ill. 168

62 N.E. 826

CHICAGO & W. I. R. CO.

v.DOAN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Zoie Doan against the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company and another. From a judgment of the appellate court (93 Ill. App. 247), affirming a judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff, the above-named defendant appeals. Affirmed.S. A. Lynde (W. H. Lyford, of counsel), for appellant.

Clark & Clark, for appellee.

This was an action on the case, brought by appellee against the appellant and the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, to recover damages for an injury which she received by being struck by a passenger train of the latter company, a lessee of appellant, while such train was running upon appellant's road. The amended declaration contained five counts. The first count charged that the appellant was the owner of a railroad, a portion of which, consisting of four parallel tracks, lay between Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth streets, in Chicago, and that the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railroad Company (referred to in the record as the ‘Monon Company’), the Wabash Railroad Company, and other railway companies, were its lessees, and were using its railroad tracks upon which to run their trains between said streets; that the Eastern Illinois Company had established a stopping place for its south-bound suburban passenger trains at a point along the said tracks about halfway between the two streets named, where passengers could board such trains, and was using said stopping place for that purpose; that it was the duty of appellant and its lessee to provide a safe and suitable waiting place for its patrons and passengers at said point to stand and wait for its trains, but that they had wholly neglected so to do; that it was the custom of such patrons and passengers, with the knowledge and consent of the defendants below, to get on board such trains at this stopping place, and that the Eastern Illinois Company collected fares from passengers boarding its trains there; that said place was a place of great danger and peril to passengers awaiting the arrival of said trains; that in the evening of November 29, 1895, it being then dark, while appellee was standing at the said place mentioned, waiting for the south-bound train of the Eastern Illinois Company to come on track 2, the Monon Company ran a train on track 1 in a northerly direction at a high rate of speed, without ringing the bell or sounding the whistle, and without having a headlight on its locomotive, in violation of a city ordinance; that by reason of this negligence and carelessness of the Monon Company, and by reason of the failure and negligence of the defendants in not providing a safe and suitable place for the patrons of its suburban trains to stand and remain while waiting for the trains stopping there, the appellee became terrified and confused, and in order to escape the apparent impending danger of injury from the Monon train she ran across track 2, and while using reasonable care to get out of the way of the Monon train the locomotive of the Eastern Illinois Company was carelessly driven by the servants of said company against and upon the plaintiff, and injured her, etc. The second count is similar to the first, but omits the negligent running of the Monon train. The third count is very much like the first. The fourth count is like...