Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Baddeley
| Decision Date | 02 April 1894 |
| Citation | 36 N.E. 965,150 Ill. 328 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. BADDELEY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, third district.
Action on the case by Charles H. Baddeley, administrator of Emily Humphrey, against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
G. W. Gere, for appellant.
Kerrick, Lucas & Spencer, for appellee.
This was an action on the case brought by Charles H. Baddeley, administrator of the estate of Emily Humphrey, deceased, against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, caused, as alleged, by the negligence of the defendant. The deceased was struck and killed by one of the defendant's locomotive engines, August 27, 1892, at a crossing of the defendant's railway over a public street of the city of Leroy, McLean county. The negligence charged in the declaration consists of recklessly, wantonly, carelessly, and improperly driving and managing the engine, and also in running it at a rate of speed greatly exceeding that permitted by an ordinance of the city. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and at the trial the jury found the defendant guilty, and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $4,000. From that sum the plaintiff remitted $1,500, and a judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500 and costs. That judgment has been affirmed by the appellate court on appeal, and the present appeal is from the judgment of affirmance.
At the trial the defendant offered no evidence, bur rested upon that introduced on the part of the plaintiff, and it then insisted, as it insisted in the appellate court, and now insists, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a recovery. It appears that the city of Leroy is a municipal corporation organized under the general law, having a population of about 1,600, and that among its ordinances in force at the time the deceased was killed was one which prohibited the running of any engine upon any railroad within the limits of the city at a greater rate of speed than 15 miles an hour for passenger trains and 6 miles an hour for freight trains. The defendant's line of railway passes through the city from the southeast to the northwest, and at the intersection of Center street, which runs east and west, with Buck street, a street running north and south, the railway crosses both streets at grade, there being a plank sidewalk on Center street at the place where it crosses the railway. On the day above mentioned, at between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, the deceased and her sister, Mrs. Richards, were walking along the sidewalk on Center street, going west, and, as they came near the track, they observed what they supposed to be a train approaching from the northwest. Mrs. Richards asked the deceased whether there would be time to cross, to which the latter replied: ‘Yes, plenty; it is way beyond the depot.’ They were then on the side track, which was but a few feet from the main track. Mrs. Richards testifies that they quickened their speed somewhat, and passed onto the main track, and, just as the witness stepped over the west rail of that track, she looked around, and saw that the engine was near them, and coming very rapidly. She escaped, but the deceased, who was on her left, was caught, and carried along by the side of the engine for some distance, and died of the injuries thereby received in a very few minutes. The engine at the time was drawing no train, but had just left a construction train on the defendant's road, two or three miles northwest of Leroy, and was on its way to Urbana, where the engine and men were to remain over Sunday. The evidence tends to show that, at the time the deceased was killed, it was running at a very high rate of speed; its speed, as estimated by some of the witnesses, being as high as 50 miles an hour. Of course, to warrant a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, it must appear from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence as charged in the declaration, and that the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care. That the evidence tends to conflict the defendant's servants in charge of the engine of negligence as alleged is, we think, too plain for argument. Not only was the engine being run at a rate of speed prohibited by the ordinance, but at a rate which, under all the circumstances, the jury might fairly pronounce negligence, even without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Schmelling
...a recovery, because in such case there must be a submission to the jury. Landgraf v. Kuh, 188 Ill. 484, 59 N. E. 501;Railway Co. v. Baddeley, 150 Ill. 328, 36 N. E. 965; Railroad Co. v. Filler, 195 Ill. 9, 62 N. E. 919. The plaintiff in error contends that there is no evidence tending to sh......
-
Cummings v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
...is authorized to instruct the jury to find for defendant. Car Co. v. Laack, 143 Ill. 242, 32 N. E. 285,18 L. R. A. 215;Railway Co. v. Baddeley, 150 Ill. 328, 36 N. E. 965;Landgraf v. Kuh, 188 Ill. 484, 59 N. E. 501. The question whether or not the evidence tends to establish a cause of acti......
-
Byram v. East St. Louis Ry. Co.
... ... Major, 18 Ill. 349, 68 Am. Dec. 553; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Baddeley, 150 Ill. 328, 36 N. E. 965; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell, 118 Ill. App. 335), and in keeping ... ...
-
McDavid v. Fiscar
...provided by law in relation to the distribution of property left by persons dying intestate.'' In Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Baddeley, 150 Ill. 328, 36 N.E. 965, the court held that the Wrongful Death Act gives an action for the benefit of a surviving husband as......