Conrad v. Springfield Consol. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1909 |
| Citation | 240 Ill. 12,88 N.E. 180 |
| Parties | CONRAD v. SPRINGFIELD CONSOL. RY. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Robert B. Shirley, Judge.
Action by James T. Conrad against the Springfield Consolidated Railway Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wilson, Warren & Child, for appellant.
T. J. Condon and Albert Salzenstein, for appellee.
On August 21, 1906, James T. Conrad was employed as a lineman by the Central Union Telephone Company. On that day he was engaged in taking down and putting up telephone wires on a telephone pole at the corner of Sixth and Monroe streets, in the city of Springfield, and while so engaged an old telephone wire which he was handling broke and fell upon a trolley wire belonging to the Springfield Consolidated Railway Company, carrying a high voltage of electricity, which was thereby communicated to his person, causing severe personal injuries. In an action on the case against the street railway company Conrad recovered a judgment for $3,000, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court for the Third District. The street railway company has prosecuted a further appeal to this court.
The declaration consists of three counts. The first and second counts charge that appellant acquired its right to operate the street car line in the city of Springfield by virtue of a certain ordinance passed by the city council of said city, the terms and conditions of which were accepted by the appellant and its predecessor companies; that the said ordinance provided that such companies should stretch and maintain suitable guard wires over and above the electric cables and overhead wires at all points where the said railway ran, where other wires belonging to other companies were suspended over and above such electric cables. These counts charged that the Central Union Telephone Company maintained wires above the electric cables at the place where the accident occurred, and that thereby it became the duty of appellant to maintain suitable guard wires over its said cables at that point; that appellant neglected and failed to maintain such guard wires, by means whereof appellee, in the course of his duty as an employé of the telephone company, and while in the exercise of due care for his own safety, was injured by the broken telephone wire coming in contact with the unguarded electric cable of appellant. The third count was for common-law negligence, and charged a failure to properly guard and protect its cables so as to avoid the injury to the appellee by coming in contact with currents of electricity that were liable to be communicated from such cables through wires of other companies coming in contact therewith.
The appellee introduced in evidence an ordinance duly passed by the city council of Springfield, approved January 20, 1890, granting to the Citizens' Street Railway Company the right to operate its lines of railway in the city of Springfield by electric power. The ordinance prescribed the manner in which such railway company should erect its poles and put up its wires and other overhead construction. Section 7 of the ordinance is as follows: The written acceptance of the Citizens' Street Railway Company of the foregoing ordinance, dated February 20, 1890, was introduced in evidence. It was admitted that appellant was the successor to the Citizens' Street Railway Company, and was exercising the rights and privileges of such company under the ordinance aforesaid.
At the request of appellee the court gave to the jury the following instruction: ‘The court instructs the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...(1902), 199 Ill. 126, 131, 65 N.E. 142; B. Shoninger Co. v. Mann (1905), 219 Ill. 242, 266, 76 N.E. 354; Conrad v. Springfield Consolidated Ry. Co. (1909), 240 Ill. 12, 17, 88 N.E. 180; O'Rourke v. Sproul (1909), 241 Ill. 576, 580, 89 N.E. 663; Barrett v. Fritz (1969), 42 Ill.2d 529, 534, 2......
-
Menard v. Goltra
... ... law of either Missouri or Illinois. Fish v. Railroad ... Co., 263 Mo. 106; Conrad v. Railroad, 240 Ill ... 12; Devine v. Safe Deposit Co., 240 Ill. 369. (5) ... Instruction 9 ... ...
-
Scory v. La Fave
...Brewing Co., supra; Jacoby v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 165 Wis. 610, 622, 161 N. W. 751, 164 N. W. 88;Conrad v. Springfield R. Co., 240 Ill. 12, 17, 88 N. E. 180, 182, 130 Am. St. Rep. 251;Shoninger Co. v. Mann, 219 Ill. 242, 76 N. E. 354, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1097;Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Ran......
-
Jacoby v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...is no doctrine of assumption of risk. Knauer v. Jos. Schlitz Brg. Co., 159 Wis. 7, 12, 149 N. W. 494;Conrad v. Springfield Ry. Co., 240 Ill. 12, 17, 88 N. E. 180, 182, 130 Am. St. Rep. 251;Chicago & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Randolph, 199 Ill. 126, 65 N. E. 142. [7][8] The statement by the court i......