The Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v. Randolph
Decision Date | 31 January 1870 |
Citation | 1870 WL 6249,5 Am.Rep. 60,53 Ill. 510 |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Parties | THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.ADONIRAM J. RANDOLPH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Logan county; the Hon. JOHN M. SCOTT, Judge, presiding. The opinion states the case.
Mr. A. W. CHURCH, and Messrs. HAY, GREENE & LITTLER, for the appellants.
Messrs. WELDON, TIPTON & BENJAMIN, for the appellee.
This action was brought by appellee, in the Logan circuit court, against appellants, to recover for damages received by him while leaving appellants' train of cars, about the twenty-first of September, 1868. It appears that, on the evening of the day the injury was received, appellee procured a ticket at Lincoln for the station at Atlanta, and got upon a freight train while it was still in motion, the employees not intending to stop at the station at Atlanta. There was another passenger got on the train at the same time, who was going to the same place. The train was a through stock and freight train, which stopped regularly at certain stations for fuel and water, but not at others, unless signaled to do so to take stock from them, or where there was freight to be delivered.
There is no evidence as to whether appellee made any inquiry, when he purchased his ticket, to learn whether the train would stop at Atlanta. Appellee, and the other passenger who got on the train at the same time, both swear that before leaving Lincoln, the conductor informed them that it would. This is denied by the conductor, who swears he was not in the caboose while at Lincoln, and not until they reached Lawnsdale, when he took up the tickets of appellee and the other passenger, when, he swears, he informed them the train would not stop at Atlanta, unless there should be stock at that point for shipment, but that he would run very slowly on the grade south of Atlanta, where they might jump off safely if they chose, which they agreed to do. The conductor seems to be corroborated in his statement by the brakeman and another passenger on the train. It appears that, when the train reached the grade and was running slowly, the conductor informed appellee and the other passenger for Atlanta, that then was their time to leap from the train, which they refused to do, whereupon they were informed that the train would not stop. On reaching that point, both men went out on the platform, and appellee leaped from the train, and in falling injured himself, but the other passenger remained on the train and was carried to the next station, where he was put off without injury. On a trial in the court below, appellee recovered a verdict for $1200, upon which judgment was rendered, and the case is brought to this court on appeal, and various errors are assigned.
It is contended by appellee, that he leaped from the train under the orders of the conductor; but on the other side it is denied that the conductor gave any such orders, or that he, at that time, even made any suggestion that he could or might leap from the train in safety. On the trial, appellants asked this instruction, but it was refused:
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
... ... Northern R. Co., 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016; Hove v ... Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 62 Wis. 666; Detroit & Milwaukee Ry. Co. v. Steinberg, 17 ... Co. v. Stratton, 78 Ill. 88; ... Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Randolph, 53 Ill. 510; ... Ill. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Chambers, 71 Ill. 519; Davis ... ...
-
Omaha Street Railway Company v. Craig
... ... ( Bardwell v ... Mobile & O. R. Co., 63 Miss. 574; Chicago & A. R ... Co. v. Randolph, 53 Ill. 510; Baltimore & P. R. Co ... v ... ...
-
Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co.
... ... Hazard ... v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 1 Bissell 503; Pittsburgh ... v. Krause, 30 Oh. St. 220; Chicago, etc., R. R. v ... Randolph, 53 Ill. 510; Jefferson, etc., R. R. v. Swift, ... 26 Ind. 549 ... ...
-
Roberts v. Smith
... ... vested in conductors (as to their relation to passengers) ... Randolph v. Railroad Co., 18 Mo.App. 609; Bass v ... Railroad Co., 36 Wis. 450, ... wishes to leave the train. Chicago etc. R.R. Co. v ... Randolph, 53 Ill. 510; Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v ... ...