Pittsburg v. Powers

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Parties: PITTSBURG, FORT WAYNE AND CHICAGO RAILWAY CO.v.PIERCE POWERS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

74 Ill. 341

1874 WL 9137 (Ill.)

PITTSBURG, FORT WAYNE AND CHICAGO RAILWAY CO.

v.PIERCE POWERS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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

This was an action on the case, brought by Pierce Powers against the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, to recover damages for a personal injury received while ditching the track in the defendant's yard. It appears that this yard was filled with tracks, and trains were moving in all directions on them. While the plaintiff was thus engaged, with others, an engine was driven upon him without any warning or signal of its approach. A trial was had which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $3,500.

Mr. F. H. WINSTON, and Mr. GEORGE WILLARD, for the appellants.

Messrs. DICKEY & CAULFIELD, for the appellee.

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

In the month of October, 1866, appellee, whilst in the employment of appellants, and at work by order of his superior, on the track of their road, was run over and injured by a locomotive of the company. The locomotive was being operated at the time by one Davis, employed as an extra engineer, or a person whose duty it was to take engines, on their arrival, to the round-house, and to bring others therefrom to be used on the road. The injury was received at the town of Valparaiso, in the State of Indiana. Appellee brought suit against the company to recover for his injuries. A trial was had by the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict, and after overruling a motion for a new trial, a judgment was rendered against defendants, from which they appeal to this court.

It is urged as ground of reversal that the court below erred in admitting evidence that the defendant had a family and was unable to support them by his labor since his injury. In the case of the City of Chicago v. O'Brennan, 65 Ill. 160, it was held error to admit such evidence; that the evidence must be confined to the plaintiff, his injuries, capacity for business and the probabilities of his recovery from the injuries received. Such evidence is well calculated to unduly enhance the damages, and to influence the jury to give damages beyond what is a compensation for the injury received. Appellants can in no case be required to support the family of one of their employees who may be injured even by the negligence of the servants of the company. Such a rule would be carrying the liability of such bodies beyond the liability of other persons, and would not accord with the analogies or principles of the law. And to permit such evidence would be virtually to impose that duty upon the defendant. It is impossible for us to know what portion of the verdict in this case was allowed because appellee had a family. The evidence was before the jury for the purpose of enhancing the damages, and we have no doubt it produced that result. This was manifest error.

It is next urged that the court below erred in giving and refusing instructions. The fifth of plaintiff's instructions was wrong, inasmuch as it authorized the jury to consider all of the circumstances of his case, as shown by the evidence. This authorized them to consider the fact that he had a family, which we have seen they should not have been permitted to take into consideration. Had that evidence not been admitted the instruction would have been proper. His second instruction was erroneous, as there was no evidence that appellee was employed to work at any particular place, but it shows that the section foreman has no power to so employ men, and that it is customary to remove them from point to point as their labor may be needed in repairing the track. And this must be so from necessity. If employed to work at a specified point, they could not, in case of an emergency, be required to labor at any other point, which would compel the employment of large bodies of men on some occasions when the force already employed would be all that was required. Where a person is employed to labor on the track of a road, generally, the presumption would be that it should be at any place they might designate within a reasonable distance of the...