Noble v. John Cunningham.

• Citation: 74 Ill. 51,1874 WL 9068
• Parties: JOHN T. NOBLE et al.v.JOHN CUNNINGHAM.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

74 Ill. 51

1874 WL 9068 (Ill.)

JOHN T. NOBLE et al.

v.JOHN CUNNINGHAM.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN BURNS, Judge, presiding.

Mr. JOHN VAN ARMAN, for the appellants.

Messrs. HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT, and Mr. JOHN C. RICHBERG, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought by John Cunningham, in the Superior Court of Cook county, against appellants, John T. Noble and Francis B. Little, to recover for an injury received, resulting in the loss of a hand, caused by the moving of a car on the side track of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, in the city of Chicago, by the servants of appellants.

A trial of the cause was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $3,000.

The appellants insist first, that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence.

We have carefully considered the testimony contained in the record, and find it ample upon which to base the verdict of the jury.

At the time appellee was injured he was a laborer in the employ of the Illinois Central Railroad Company; two cars were standing together on a side track of the company; he went under one of them for the purpose of making some repairs; before doing this, however, he placed a man by the side of the car to keep watch and notify him should any other car or engine approach; several feet north of the car to be repaired, upon the same track, stood a number of cars, also three cars were standing some distance south.

Appellants, who kept a lumber yard in Chicago, on the morning of the accident sent three of their hired men with lumber to the railroad to be carred and shipped. The car to be loaded was one of the number standing on the track, north of where appellee was at work. The servants of appellants, in order to facilitate the loading of the car, undertook to move the cars between the one they desired to load and the car where appellee was at work, further south in the direction of appellee. They hitched a span of horses to the first car to be moved and started it, but when in motion they were unable to control it, and before appellee had any notice of the approach of the car, it struck the one adjoining the car appellee was repairing, which moved it forward and crushed appellee's hand.

The railroad company had, in its employ, a man, provided with an engine, whose duty and business it was to move all cars when necessary to accommodate its patrons.

It is claimed application was made to the agent to move the car, and the engine provided for that purpose was then in use, and the three servants of appellants were directed by the agent to move the cars themselves; this, however, was denied by the agent.

But independent of this fact, if the servants of appellants undertook to move the car, they were bound to exercise proper care and caution, and if they failed to observe this duty, and appellee was injured, when...