The Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v. Mclaughlin

• Decision Date: 31 January 1868
• Parties: THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.JAMES MCLAUGHLIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

47 Ill. 265

1868 WL 4973 (Ill.)

THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY

v.JAMES MCLAUGHLIN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1868.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. EDWARD Y. RICE, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Messrs. PALMER & HAY, for the appellants.

Messrs. McCLERNAND, BROADWELL & SPRINGER, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action brought by James McLaughlin against the railway company, for injuries received by him from the alleged carelessness of one of the employees of the corporation. It appears the track of the road is laid down through one of the public streets of the city of Springfield, and its freight depot fronts upon the street. The track is thus accessible to the public. The plaintiff was at play with other boys upon the track, or street, and climbed upon the step or stirrup of a freight car standing there. The yard-master came and mounted the same car, going to the top by the same stirrup, at the south end of the car. As he went up the stirrup the boy let go and stood by the side of the car. The yard master passed, on the roof of the car, to the north end, and loosened the brakes. The car then began to move, from what cause does not appear, as it was an isolated car, but we suppose it was standing on a descending grade. Before the car had moved over a space equal to its own length, it passed over the foot of the boy, inflicting serious injury. This is the account given by the witnesses for the plaintiff. It does not appear how the boy's foot happened to be caught by the car wheel, but each count of the declaration avers that the plaintiff was on the car when it was set in motion, and was cast upon the ground. If that be so, he must have again climbed upon the stirrup after the yard-master had mounted the car. That he had let go his hold when the latter went up, and was standing upon the ground, there can be no doubt. His witness so testifies, and he would undoubtedly let go the stirrup, on which the witness says he was swinging, to allow the yard-master to pass. The yard-master gave no signal that the car was about to move.

How the yard-master was guilty, in this transaction, of culpable negligence, we are wholly unable to perceive. Waiving all question of what degree of negligence is attributable to parents who permit their children to play about railway depots and cars, we are of opinion that this evidence discloses...