Peterson v. Chicago Consol. Traction Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1907 |
| Citation | 83 N.E. 159,231 Ill. 324 |
| Parties | PETERSON v. CHICAGO CONSOL. TRACTION CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; John L. Healy, Judge.
Action by Arthur Peterson against the Chicago Consolidated Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, affirmed by the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.John A. Rose, Albert M. Cross, and Frank L. Kriete (W. W. Gurley, of counsel), for appellant.
Adler & Lederer, for appellee.
The appellee recovered a judgment for $10,000 in the superior court of Cook county for injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, and this further appeal is now prosecuted.
The appellee was riding on an open electric street car of appellant's line on Elston avenue, and wanted to get off at Central Park avenue. When the car reached a point about 300 feet from Central Park avenue, he rose from his seat in the middle of the car, at the same time raising his hand as a signal to the conductor, who was standing on the rear platform, went over to the side of the car, and stepped down on the foot board. Almost immediately he fell from the car, was run over by the trailer, there being two cars in the train, and received the injuries complained of, resulting in the amputation of one of his legs close to the body.
The appellant contends that it was error to refuse its request to instruct the jury to find it not guilty, because there is no evidence of negligence on its part and the evidence shows that the accident was caused by the appellee's own negligence. The negligence charged which the evidence tended to prove was that appellant had allowed its roadbed and tracks to become so defective and unsafe that the cars passing over said defective tracks made it dangerous for passengers riding thereon, and that the plaintiff, having signaled the conductor to stop, while preparing to get off, was thrown from the car by a jerk caused by the defective condition of said track and roadbed. The accident occurred in the afternoon. Appellee was between 14 and 15 years of age, and was familiar with this line of street cars, having traveled over it frequently. The cars were running 10 or 12 miles an hour. There was evidence that they were rocking and swaying-running rough-and that the pavement of wooden blocks between the rails was being repaired at the place of the accident and the rubbish thrown to one side. Appellee testified that, when he got down on the foot board, he had hold of the iron bars at the ends of the seats with both hands; that there was a quick jerk of the car and he fell to the ground. There was evidence to the contrary as to the jolting, uneven motion of the cars, but it was a question for the jury as to whether the swaying, jolting, and bounding of the car as described by the witnesses was attributable solely to its rapid motion over a smooth track or to the rough and defective condition of the track. The evidence fairly tends to support the allegation of the declaration in this respect.
As to the care of appellee. He left his seat in the middle of the car, where he was safe, when within about 300 feet of his destination, which the car would reach, at the rate it was traveling, within 15 or 20 seconds. Whether he gave any signal or not, his getting up from his seat and getting down on the foot board was sufficient notice to the conductor of his intention to leave the car. The car was not crowded-was not full-and the conductorsaw him. The conductor did not anticipate danger or he would have warned the passenger, a boy who could hardly be expected to exercise the same prudence as an older person. The conductor did not give any signal to the motorman, and there was no negligence in his failure to do so, for the car was not yet near enough to the crossing. But it is impossible to say as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Aurora, E.&C.R. Co.
... ... Ruth, Judge.Action by Kate A. Moore against the Aurora, Elgin & Chicago Railroad Company. A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Appellate ... Peterson v. Chicago Consolidated Traction Co., 231 Ill. 324, 83 N. E. 159;Knox v ... ...
-
Knox v. American Rolling Mill
...any difficulty, under any of these instructions, in understanding the time meant. What was said by this court in Peterson v. Chicago Traction Co., 231 Ill. 324, 83 N. E. 159, with reference to an instruction which was, if anything, more open to this objection than the one here in question d......
-
Cicero State Bank v. Dolese & Shepard Co.
... ... , defendant appeals.Affirmed.[18 N.E.2d 574] Howard & Greene, of Chicago (H. L. Howard, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.Julius H. Selinger ... In Peterson v. Chicago Consol. Traction Co., 231 Ill. 324, 83 N.E. 159, the plaintiff ... ...
-
Wolf v. Budzyn
... ... Bloomingston, of Chicago, for appellant.Cassels, Potter & Bentley, of Chicago (Ralph F. Potter, L ... In Peterson v. Chicago Consol. Traction Co., 231 Ill. 324, 83 N.E. 159, the plaintiff ... ...