Hopkins v. the Indianapolis

• Decision Date: 30 June 1875
• Citation: 1875 WL 8411,78 Ill. 32
• Parties: NATHAN F. HOPKINSv.THE INDIANAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

78 Ill. 32

1875 WL 8411 (Ill.)

NATHAN F. HOPKINS

v.THE INDIANAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1875.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. DALE & BURNETT, and Mr. LEVERETT BELL, for the appellant.

Mr. B. W. HANNA, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought to recover damages of the defendant, for an injury occasioned in coupling cars, on the allegation that defendant had failed to provide the cars with proper links, bumpers, draw-heads and other necessary machinery and fixtures, so that the duty of coupling the cars might be safely performed; and on the further allegation, of permitting cars to be improperly loaded, whereby the danger of coupling was greatly increased. There was a further allegation, that the deficiency in the necessary apparatus for safe coupling of the cars might have been known to the defendant by the exercise of proper diligence.

There was a plea of not guilty, and trial by jury, who found a verdict for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment rendered against the plaintiff for the costs, and the plaintiff appeals.

The errors assigned question the instructions of the court given on behalf of the defendant, and the finding of the jury, as being against the evidence, and the admission of certain testimony on the part of the defendant.

The first point is made on this assignment of errors. It is insisted the testimony of Pease and of five others, called as experts, should not have been admitted. These witnesses were permitted, against the objections of plaintiff, to give to the jury their opinion as to the propriety of plaintiff's act in coupling the cars, and permitting them to state what they would have done under like circumstances. It was sought by these witnesses to show that plaintiff's act in coupling the cars was the act of an imprudent and careless man.

We are satisfied the matter about which these witnesses were examined, was not a question proper for the testimony of experts, as it was not one of science, skill or trade, to which the dogmatical statements of experts are allowed to go to the jury, on the presumption their pursuits qualify them to speak authoritatively. Here is no such question. It was one of care, simply, about which the jury would be as competent to give an opinion on the facts disclosed, as...