Rockford v. Delaney
Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
Parties | ROCKFORD, ROCK ISLAND AND ST. LOUIS R. R. CO.v.JOHN DELANEY, Admr. etc. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. B. C. COOK, for the appellant.
Mr. WILLIAM G. KASE, and Mr. WILLIAM H. BENNETT, for the appellee.
The plaintiff's intestate, a lad of nine years of age, was killed at a street crossing in East St. Louis, by a train of cars. On the trial in the court below, controversy existed whether the train by which the intestate was killed was, at the time, under the control of appellant or of that of The St. Louis and Indianapolis Railroad Company, which was impleaded with appellant; but, since the finding of the jury on this point was not pressed in argument as ground of reversal, it will be unnecessary to refer to the evidence bearing upon it.
The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, instructed the jury, “that, as to the question of damages, they should take into consideration the value of the services of the deceased, from the time of his death until he would have been twenty-one years of age, deducting therefrom what it would be worth to feed and clothe him during that time, as proved.”
The objection taken to the instruction, by appellant, is, that it does not lay down the correct measure of damages, because the damages contemplated by the statute under which the suit is brought, are the pecuniary loss which results to the next of kin, for the reason that they are next of kin to the intestate, and not the damages which result to the father from the loss of the services of his son.
We can not regard this as an open question. In The City of Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 468, we said:
was held that the question of who, as between several persons claiming to be next of kin, is so in fact, and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the judgment, when recovered, is to be settled by the court of probate; and it follows, that court must also determine the amount to which each of the next of kin, when ascertained, is entitled.
There was evidence tending to show negligence on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Miller
... ... R. R ... Co. v. Watley, [150 Miss. 73] 69 Miss. 145; Ry. Co ... v. Freeman, 36 Ark. 41; Ry. Co. v. Delaney, 82 ... Ill. 198, 25 Am. Rep. 308; Penn. Ry. Co. v. Lilly, ... 73 Ind. 352; Benton v. Ry. Co., 55 Ia. 496, 8 N.W ... 330; Hopkinson v ... ...
-
Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Roberts
...Co. v. Smith, 145 So. 898; Comm. vb. Mullin, 23 N.E. 51. There was no error in showing deceased was obedient. 17 C. J. 1357; R. R. v. Delaney, 25 Am. Rep. 308; Gulf Ref. Co. v. Miller, 121 So. 484. There was no error in admission and exclusion of evidence offered. Meek v. Perry, 36 Miss. 26......
-
The Vill. of Gibson v. Johnson
...Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 451; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffitt, 67 Ill. 431; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482. Where the negligence of the plaintiff materially contributes to the injury......
-
Jones v. Karraker, 57598
...in this case. Yet the award that is made for a wrongful death should take account of these factors. (See Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Delaney (1876), 82 Ill. 198, 199; C. McCormick, Damages sec. 101, at 352 (West 1935).) Significantly only one of the Illinois cases cited by......