Glime v. New York Cent. R. Co., Gen. No. 46446

• Decision Date: 06 April 1955
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 46446
• Parties: William J. GLIME, Appellee, v. The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 385

126 N.E.2d 385 5 Ill.App.2d 509 William J. GLIME, Appellee,
v.
The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant. Gen. No. 46446. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. April 6, 1955.

[5 Ill.App.2d 510] Marvin A. Jersild, Charles F. White, L. Thomas Houser, Chicago, for appellant.

Henslee, Monek & Murray, Chicago, Edward B. Henslee, Jr., Melvin L. Griffith, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.

SCHWARTZ, Justice.

This is a suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. Defendant appeals from a judgment on a verdict for $50,000. Plaintiff was employed as a brakeman and about 2:00 A. M. on December 28, 1949, he was proceeding in the course of his work from the south to the north side of a track in defendant's yard at Toledo, Ohio. His passage was obstructed by a train consisting[5 Ill.App.2d 511] of an engine and 23 or 24 freight cars. Plaintiff climbed between two of the cars and was about to get off on the other side when the cars moved, he was thrown to the ground, and the wheels of the cars passed over and cut off his left arm. As no point is made on the amount of the damages, there is no occasion to discuss the injuries further.

Page 386

Plaintiff charges that defendant failed to provide a safe place to work and failed to warn plaintiff that it was about to move the train, in violation of its rule requiring that an engine bell must be rung when an engine is about to move. The case went to the jury on both charges, and following the verdict all the usual post trial motions were made and were overruled. Defendant makes three points in its brief--that there was no proof of any negligence on the part of defendant; that it was error to instruct the jury on the duty of defendant to provide a safe place to work; and that plaintiff was injured solely as a proximate result of his own negligence. Defendant does not seek a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, but prays that the judgment be reversed because there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support the submission of the case to the jury.

Plaintiff was 30 years old at the time of the accident. He had been employed as a brakeman by defendant since 1940. He had been promoted to conductor in 1944, but at the time of the accident, he was a member of a crew of two brakemen and a conductor working out of the Airline Junction Yard at Toledo, Ohio. He had been called for work by the register clerk at 12:30 A. M. and reported to the trainmaster and general yardmaster's office at 1:45 A. M., then walked to his caboose which was located on the East Caboose Storage Track. For the purpose of understanding plaintiff's movements, it is necessary to describe the locale in which the accident occurred.

[5 Ill.App.2d 512] The Airline Junction Yard is a busy and important yard for the make-up of trains, storage of cabooses, and other services in the Toledo area. It runs east and west a distance of approximately 2 miles and is about 2/3rds of a mile wide. At the place in...