Sperry v. Wabash R. Co.
Citation | 55 F. Supp. 825 |
Decision Date | 29 June 1944 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 352-D. |
Parties | SPERRY v. WABASH R. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
C. E. Tate, of Champaign, Ill., and W. A. Nichols, of Urbana, Ill., for plaintiff.
Henry I. Green, of Champaign, Ill., for defendants.
At the close of all the evidence, defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury returned a verdict for $4,000 and defendant now moves for judgment notwithstanding it.
Plaintiff was injured by a locomotive of defendant while it was proceeding from a southeasterly direction in a northwesterly direction in the city of Urbana. Plaintiff and her companion, a girl of similar age, ten years, were walking on the right of way, between the tracks, on a path used by pedestrians for a great many years as a matter of convenience. The two girls approached the railroad on California Street which runs east and west and crosses the railroad, and after having waited in the cold for a bus which did not appear and having argued as to whether they should walk down the railroad track, proceeded on the track toward Illinois Street to a point approximately half way between the two streets.
Defendant's engine was proceeding in a reversed position, drawing five cars. It came into Urbana some four or five blocks southeast of the place of the accident, the engineer being on the lookout on one side and the fireman on the other. The evidence is undisputed that as the train came into the city the service brakes were applied, reducing the speed of the train; that at each crossing, whistles were blown; that the bell was ringing; that the engineer and fireman saw the two girls; that the emergency brakes were immediately applied and continuous short blasts of the whistle thereafter given as emergency alarms; that plaintiff's companion called to her, warning her, and ran off the track to the east and up the bank to safety; that plaintiff attempted to follow but somehow caught her foot on the rail, tripped and fell so that the engine ran over her leg necessitating its amputation. The locomotive came to a stop at the Illinois Street crossing. Defendant's evidence was that the train was going twelve to fifteen miles an hour; that everything was done to avoid the accident that could have been done. Some of plaintiff's witnesses testified that the train was running over thirty miles an hour. Substantially the only controversy of fact lay in the estimates of the witnesses as to the rate of speed.
Obviously it was the duty of the railroad company under the averments of the complaint to exercise the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent railroad company under the proved circumstances to avoid injuring the plaintiff and the duty of plaintiff to exercise the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent child of her years for her own safety. As to specific definition of the duty of the railroad company we find in the Illinois decisions many authoritative and informative announcements. Thus the Supreme Court of Illinois said, under similar facts, that the obligation was no greater duty than the use of reasonable care to discover persons using the right of way for longitudinal pedestrian travel and to avoid injuring them. Morgan v. New York Cent. R. Co., 327 Ill. 339 at page 344, 158 N.E. 724, at page 726. The court added: "The engineer was not required to stop the train until it became apparent that Morgan had not heard or would not heed the signal."
In the earlier case, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 189 Ill. 559, 59 N.E. 1098, 1100, many persons had used defendant's right of way. The court said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that a railroad company, in the operation of its trains, owes no duty to a trespasser upon its right of way or tracks, except that it will not wantonly or willfully inflict injury upon him; and we have frequently held that the mere fact that * * * those operating its trains may have knowledge of the fact that persons have been in the habit of crossing its tracks or walking upon them at places other than public crossings or public places, will not amount to proof of willful and wanton disregard of duty toward such trespassers." In the still earlier case, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500 at page 506, 22 Am.Rep. 112, the court announced:
In Cunningham v. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co., 260 Ill. 589 at page 594, 103 N.E. 594, at page 596, the court said:
In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eicher, 202 Ill. 556, 67 N.E. 376, 378, plaintiff was walking down a cinder path between the double tracks of the railroad which had been generally used because it was a better road for pedestrians than the public road alongside the right of way furnished. The court said: (Italics supplied).
In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Noble, 142 Ill. 578, 586, 32 N.E. 684, 686, the court said:
In Peirce v. Walters, 164 Ill. 560, at page 563, 45 N.E. 1068, at page 1069, the court approved an instruction stating that Thus in Illinois, the duty of the railroad company to a licensee and to one trespassing is exactly the same,—not wantonly or willfully to injure him and to exercise reasonable care for his safety after discovering his peril.
In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eicher, supra, the court added: "One who has permission or license to travel along the tracks takes it subject to the use of the road without reference to him. The license imposes no obligation to take precautions for his safety, or to run trains in any respect different from what they would be run if he was not there. He takes the premises as he finds them, with all the attendant dangers connected with their use, only subject to the limitation that the company shall not inflict upon him wanton or intentional injury. * * * `The safety of the traveling public demands that the right of way of a railroad company should be unobstructed.' A railroad company has no right to disregard its obligations to the traveling public, or disable itself from their full performance. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boehrer v. Thompson
... ... question for the jury. Mullis v. Thompson, 213 ... S.W.2d 941; Rigley v. Prior, 290 Mo. 10, 233 S.W ... 828; Dixon v. Wabash R. Co., 198 S.W.2d 395. (14) ... There is legal presumption of due care of the deceased which ... is sufficient to have case submitted to the jury ... 862, 41 A.L.R. 1345." The ... development of this rule by the Illinois decisions is ... comprehensively reviewed by Judge Lindley in Sperry v ... ...
-
Puckett v. Soo Line R. Co.
...near the tracks. Higgins v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 16 Ill.App.2d 227, 231, 147 N.E.2d 714, 716-17 (4th Dist.1958); see Sperry v. Wabash R.R., 55 F.Supp. 825, 826 (E.D.Ill.1944). But Illinois law does require railroad crews to keep a proper lookout for individuals in the vicinity of the tracks,......
-
Guess v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...is, however, apparently a conflict of Illinois authority upon that question. See the opinion of Judge Lindley in Sperry v. Wabash R. Co., D.C.E.D.Ill., 55 F.Supp. 825, 826-828, and compare Hill v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 7 Cir., 153 F.2d 91, 93. We We shall assume, without deciding, that, ......
-
Higgins v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 57-0-8
...Ill. 163, 77 N.E. 96; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Eicher, 202 Ill. 556, 67 N.E. 376; Ingram v. Jackson, 206 Ill.App. 466; Sperry v. Wabash R. Co., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 825. The last case involving two ten year old girls, contains careful analysis of the Illinois law on the No attempt is here made ......