Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 01 April 1897
• Citation: 166 Ill. 270,46 N.E. 799
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. SANDERS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

166 Ill. 270

46 N.E. 799

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

v.SANDERS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 1, 1897.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth department.

Action for personal injuries by William H. Sanders against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the appellate court (66 Ill. App. 439), and defendant appeals. Affirmed.William H. Green, for appellant.

Samuel L. Dwight and Frank F. Noleman, for appellee.

This was an action brought by William H. Sanders against the Illinois Railroad Company to recover for a personal injury received on the 22d day of February, 1892, while in the service of the company as a brakeman. The declaration contained four counts, but, as the fourth count contains a more accurate statement of the plaintiff's cause of action than the other counts, it will only be necessary to refer to that one. It is alleged that on the 22d day of February, 1892, at the village of Edgewood, plaintiff was in the employ of the railroad company as brakeman, and it became and was his duty to assist in switching and transferring cars of the defendant; and it then and there became and was the duty of the defendant to the said William Henry Sanders to keep and maintain that portion of its main tracks in the vicinity of said side tracks as aforesaid, over which it was necessary for its brakemen to pass in order to do said switching, in safe and proper condition, so as not to expose the said William Henry Sanders to any unnecessary exposure to danger or liability to accident; and it was then and there the duty of the defendant to have filled in the space between and underneath the ties of its said railroad track with cinders or other substance, and not to then and there leave open and uncovered a ditch, culvert, water course, or cattle guard, so that in standing and walking on the said track in order to couple its said cars a brakeman would not be exposed to unnecessary danger or liability to catch his foot between said ties, or stumble or trip over the same, or catch his foot in such open and uncovered ditch, culvert, water course, or cattle guard. But the said defendant, not regarding its duty in that plaintiff, carelessly and negligently permitted that portion of its main track in the vicinity of its said switch and side tracks to be and remain in unsafe repair and condition, and then and there carelessly and negligently permitted certain ties thereof to be and remain above the surface of the ground, and neglected and failed to have the spaces underneath and between said ties filled with cinders or other substance, and neglected and failed to have an open ditch, culvert, or water course and cattle guard then and there situate underneath and in that portion of its said main tracks near said switches and side tracks, and over which the said Sanders was obliged to walk and pass in doing said switching and making said coupling, properly and suitably covered over with a suitable foot passage thereon and thereover, so that the said Sanders could walk and pass over the same, as the was obliged to do, without incurring unnecessary danger of catching his foot, stumbling or tripping thereon; and thereby the said William Henry Sanders, while standing and walking upon said portion of said main track, as he was obliged to do in order to make a coupling between the cars in the head end with the cars in the rear end of defendant's train in the line of his employment pursuant to his duty, not knowing the defective condition of said track as aforesaid, was then and there exposed to unnecessary danger and liability to accident, and then and there, while so engaged in making the coupling between defendant's cars as aforesaid standing and walking upon the said portion of said main track, using due care and diligence for his own personal safety, in the line of his duty, one of his feet became entangled, caught, and fastened between and underneath two of said ties of said portion of defendant's main track, and he then and there necessarily and unavoidably slipped into and caught his foot in said open and uncovered ditch, culvert, water course, or cattle guard. and the plaintiff was then and there thrown with great force, violence, and by the momentum of the cars he was so engaged in coupling necessarily and unavoidably fell to and upon the rails and ties of said side track, and divers wheels of one of defendant's cars which plaintiff was then and there engagedin coupling then and there ran and passed over his right leg, whereby he was injured, etc. To the declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue, and on a trial before a jury the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the railroad company, which, on appeal, was reversed in the appellate court. On a second trial the plaintiff again recovered, and the second judgment was affirmed in the appellate court. Appellee, at the time of his injury, was about 26 years of age. He had been in the employ of the railroad company about three years as a brakeman and switchman on the division of its road extending from Centralia south to Cairo and in the switch yards at Centralia. About the 1st of February, 1892, he was transferred to a run from Centralia to Effingham, as a brakeman on a local freight train, making daily trips. There were employed on this train an engineer, fireman, conductor, and three brakemen, of whom appellee was one, designated as the ‘head brakeman.’ This train was scheduled to leave Centralia every morning, and make the trip to Effingham, a distance of some 52 miles, and to return to Centralia the evening of the same day, about 5 or 6 o'clock. This train crew were required to load and unload all freight at stations along the line, and to switch and transfer all cars to from the sidings and switch tracks to the main tracks. On the 22d day of February, 1892, the train upon which appellee was employed left Centralia in time; made the trip north to Effingham; then the train started on the return trip south, and reached Edgewood about 4:30 p. m. As the train approached the village, it was cut in two by uncoupling two cars four cars from the rear. The rear portion of the train followed the forward portion down inside the switch yards of the village, and stopped, the south rear car standing over a trestle crossing over a ravine or depression six or seven feet in width. These switch yards contained, in addition to the main track, a passing track and a house track connected to the main track at the north end of the yards, and running south past the depot on the west side of the main track, where they were again connected; also a Y track, extending from appellant's main track to a branch of the then Ohio & Mississippi Railway Company, which crossed appellant's road at that point. These tracks, together with the main track, were all used in the switching, coupling, uncoupling, and transfer of cars in this switch yard. Appellee was in the forward portion of the train as it came into the village. Two cars were thrown in on the Y; then some cars were switched from the house track on the main track, and the forward portion of the train was started back to couple on the rear end standing in the north part of the yards. The north car in the forward portion of the train was a Missouri Pacific box car, with a high drawhead. The south...