Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkins

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARTER
• Citation: Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 200 Ill. 122, 65 N.E. 656 (Ill. 1902)
• Decision Date: 16 December 1902
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. HOPKINS.

200 Ill. 122

65 N.E. 656

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

v.HOPKINS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Action by M. J. Hopkins against the Illinois Central Railroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment of the appellate court (100 Ill. App. 594) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Barr (J. M. Dickinson, of counsel), for appellant.

M. M. Thompson and R. J. McElvain, for appellee.

CARTER, J.

The appellee, who was plaintiff in the Jackson circuit court, recovered a judgment for $1,000 against the appellant for an injury which she sustained by stumbling and falling over a ‘skid,’ which, as she alleged, the defendant had negligently suffered to lie and remain across its depot platform at Makanda, one of its stations in Jackson county. The skid was a kind of ladder about eight feet long, made of two pieces of scantling two by four inches, held about 18 inches apart by iron bands, and was used by the company in loading and unloading barrels and other freight on and from its freight cars at the platform in question. About 7 o'clock in the evening of January 11, 1900, plaintiff, who kept a boarding house in Makanda, went to the depot to deliver to the mail clerks on the defendant's mail and passenger train, then approaching from the south, their evening meals, which she had prepared for them, as she had been accustomed to do for the preceding eight years. When the train stopped it was dark, and the platform was not lighted. The mail car was near the north end of the platform, and the plaintiff, with a basket in each hand, went along the platform toward the mail car, and when near the same struck her foot against the skid, which was lying across the platform, but which she could not see, and fell and was seriously injured. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, and the defendant has appealed.

The principal errors alleged and relied on for a reversal of the judgment are two: First, that the plaintiff was a mere licensee to go upon the defendant's platform, and that the defendant owed her no duty except not to injure her wantonly, and, therefore, is not liable in this action; second, that the only charge of negligence in the declaration is that the defendant suffered the skid to lie across the depot platform, and that there was no proof that the servants of the defendant placed or left it there, or knew it was there, or that it had lain there for a sufficient length of time to raise the presumption of notice. The defendant offered no evidence, but asked the court to instruct the jury to find defendant not guilty. This the court refused. The appellant contends that the instruction should have been given because of lack of proof in the respects above mentioned.

1. If the plaintiff was a mere licensee, and went upon the defendant's platform for purposes of her own, and not for any purpose connected with the business of the company, or which the company permitted to be carried on there, she could not be permitted to recover, for in such case the company owed her no duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its platform free from obstructions, so that she might not be injured by them. Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N. E. 182,17 L. R. A. 588, 36 Am. St. Rep. 376; 3 Elliott, R. R. § 1250; Sweeny v. Railroad Co., 10 Allen, 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644;Woolwine's Adm'r v. Railway Co., 36 W. Va. 335, 15 S. E. 81,16 L. R. A. 271, 32 Am. St. Rep. 859; Tobin v. Railroad Co., 59 Me. 188, 8 Am. Rep. 415; Railroad Co. v. Schwindling, 101 Pa. 261, 47 Am. Rep. 706;Railway Co. v. Fairbairn, 48 Ark. 491, 4 S. W. 50. If, however, the plaintiff was upon the platform of the defendant, not as a mere licensee but by its invitation, express or implied, to furnish meals to persons being carried on its trains, it was, as to the plaintiff, in duty bound to use at least ordinary care to keep its platform free from such obstructions and defects as would be liable to cause injury to persons who, like her, should pass over such platform while using due care for their own safety. 3 Elliott, R. R. § 1249, and cases there cited. These mail clerks were riding in the mail car of the defendant's train, and were carried by the company under contract with the...