Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Slatton

• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Citation: Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Slatton, 54 Ill. 133, 1870 WL 6268, 5 Am.Rep. 109 (Ill. 1870)
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.SUSAN SLATTON, Administratrix.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

54 Ill. 133

1870 WL 6268 (Ill.)

5 Am.Rep. 109

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

v.SUSAN SLATTON, Administratrix.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1870.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Perry county; the Hon. MONROE C. CRAWFORD, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Mr. GEORGE W. WALL, for the appellants.

Mr. EDWARD V. PIERCE and Mr. WILLIAM M. CHRISTIAN, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought to the Perry circuit court, by Susan Slatton, administratrix on the estate of John W. Slatton, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, to recover damages for having caused the death of the intestate, by the negligent management of a train.

There were two counts in the declaration, one alleging that while deceased was using due care when alighting from the train at Tamaroa, the train was suddenly and violently started forward, by means whereof deceased was thrown under the wheels, and injured so that he died.

In the other count it is alleged, that as deceased was about to alight from the train, using due care, he was violently pushed off by the servants of the company in charge of the train, whereby he was thrown under the wheels, receiving a fatal injury.

The general issue was pleaded and the cause tried by a jury, who found for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at eleven hundred and sixty-six dollars.

A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict, to reverse which the defendants appeal.

There was much testimony heard, and, as usual in such cases, not entirely harmonious.

The rule of law need not be repeated, that, to justify a recovery in this action, the allegations of the plaintiff must be sustained by the evidence; and when the evidence is conflicting, the verdict must stand, unless it shall appear that, although it is conflicting, the weight is decidedly in favor of the defendant.

The first count charges as negligence on the part of the defendants, that while deceased was leaving the car, using due care, the train was suddenly and violently started forward, by means whereof he was thrown under the wheels, and so injured as to cause his death. It can not be claimed that the evidence tends, in the slightest, to substantiate this charge--no witness has spoken to that point, consequently, these allegations are not sustained.

The second count charges that the deceased was violently pushed off the train by the servants of the defendants in charge of the train, whereby he was thrown under the wheels, and was injured fatally.

The case was put to the jury mainly on this count. The theory of the plaintiff evidently was, that some employee of the company used force in putting the deceased off the train while it was in motion, and it was so put to the jury by the first instruction asked by the plaintiff.

If there existed reasonable grounds for the hypothesis of the second count, the civil authorities, indeed, the whole people of Tamaroa, were greatly remiss in their duty, in not pursuing the offender in order to his prompt punishment, for it was murder, most foul and terrible. It can not be possible that such a fiend was employed by this company in their service.

John W. Parlier, in his testimony, gives some color to this theory, and so does Robert Murray, a lad about sixteen years of age when the accident occurred, in a slight degree, when he says there was some man on the car platform behind deceased; thought it was some man belonging to the train--the brakeman or conductor; did not see him after deceased fell; when he first saw deceased, he was standing with one foot on the car steps and one foot on the station platform, with one hand on the railing; the man had on a cap; did not see any badge on it; thought he was a brakeman or conductor; had seen him pass through on the train before, several times; he (the man) was standing on the car platform; did not say or do anything to the deceased; saw deceased get off; thought he had one foot on the platform of the station; the train had moved eighteen or twenty feet. On his cross-examination, he says the man was a low, heavy set man; he also says there were two cars behind the one he (meaning, evidently, the deceased) was on, and another, which would make three cars, when the proof is overwhelming, deceased came out of the car next forward of the last car.

It is fully proved that no employee on the train could have interfered with the deceased, in any particular, unless, possibly, Glassford, who states he did leave his station, which was on the front end of the last car, and got out on the station platform at Tamaroa, and passed through one or two cars to regain his position, and he testifies he did not see or touch any soldier getting off, nor say anything to any one of them who got off at Tamaroa, and knew nothing of the occurrence until he was told of it by a soldier.

The second witness for plaintiff, Mr. Corgan, gives a very full and clear account of the occurrence, of which he...