Lalor v. Chicago

• Decision Date: 30 September 1869
• Citation: 4 Am.Rep. 616,52 Ill. 401,1869 WL 5457
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: BRIDGET LALOR, Administratrix, etc.v.CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY.

52 Ill. 401

1869 WL 5457 (Ill.)

4 Am.Rep. 616

BRIDGET LALOR, Administratrix, etc.

v.CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1869.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case under the statute, brought by the appellant, Bridget Lalor, as widow and administratrix, against the appellees, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, for the killing of her husband, Joseph Lalor. A general demurrer was interposed to the declaration, and sustained by the court.

Mr. JNO. J. MCKINNON, for the appellant

Messrs. WALKER & DEXTER, for the appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant's counsel is perfectly right in contending, that the principle involved in this case has never before been discussed, or decided by this court.

In our judgment, the cases on which appellees rely, Honner v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. 15 Ill. 550, and Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Cox, 21 ib. 20, are not analogous. In the first case cited, the plaintiff was engaged with his fellow servants in the same grade of employment, in working at a turn-table with iron bars, one of which broke and injured him.

In the other case, the deceased was an employee on the car, engaged in a common business with the other servants.

The declaration in this case alleges that the deceased was employed about the depot grounds and freight house as a common laborer, specially for the purpose of loading and unloading the freight cars, at monthly wages, and for no other or different purpose whatever; that while he was engaged in loading a freight car with pig iron, the deceased was ordered by the superintendent or foreman of the company, employed to manage, direct and superintend the business and affairs of the company about the depot, to couple and connect a freight car with other cars attached to a locomotive, contrary to the special engagement of the deceased, and to do which he was unversed and inexperienced, and which fact was well known to the superintendent, and while so engaged, having to go between the cars for the purpose, the engine was so carelessly managed as to bring the cars together with great force, and while he was so between them, by means of which he was crushed to death.

The demurrer admits these facts, and they make a strong case for the appellant; not like the cases cited by appellee, supra, they show a case of a person injured while engaged in a sphere of employment, and under the command of his superior, different from...