The Chicago v. Platt

• Decision Date: 30 June 1878
• Citation: 89 Ill. 141,1878 WL 9986
• Parties: THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANYv.WILLIAM PLATT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

89 Ill. 141

1878 WL 9986 (Ill.)

THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY

v.WILLIAM PLATT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1878.

APPEAL from the City Court of Alton; the Hon. HENRY S. BAKER, Judge, presiding.

Mr. C. P. WISE, for the appellant.

Mr. ALEXANDER W. HOPE, and Mr. JOHN F. MCGINNIS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought to the City Court of Alton, by William Platt, plaintiff, and against the Chicago and Alton railroad company, defendant, to recover damage for a personal injury. The injury consisted in bruising one of the legs of the plaintiff, rendering amputation below the knee necessary, and was caused by a defective ladder which plaintiff was obliged to use in the performance of his duty as a brakeman. The car on which was this defective ladder was a stock car, and, to all appearances, in good condition and repair in all respects, no defect in the ladder being visible or known to the defendant. Much testimony was heard on the trial, and the jury, under instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at five thousand dollars. On motion for a new trial, the plaintiff remitted fifteen hundred dollars, and judgment was rendered for three thousand five hundred dollars, the motion being denied.

To reverse this judgment the defendants appeal, and assign as error the refusal to grant a new trial, and misdirection of the jury.

We will not discuss the first ground urged for reversal, but confine our attention to the instruction of which complaint is made. This is as follows:

“If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff was a brakeman on the freight train of said defendant, and while in such employ, and in the discharge of his duty, it was necessary to go up on the cars, and, while going up on the side of one of the cars on said train, the top step or round gave way or pulled out, through a defect in the same, the jury will find for the plaintiff, if the jury further believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff never saw the car before and had no notice of its defects.”

It is claimed by appellants, this instruction was calculated to mislead the jury, and is opposed to previous rulings of this court on the same point.

It seems to us the instruction was too broad, and calculated to prejudice the defendant's case, and did not declare the law as understood by this court. The instruction makes the supposed facts therein stated, conclusive, when the facts stated might exist and yet the defendants be free from negligence. So far as is shown by the testimony, the car in question was in good order in all respects. This instruction omits an important element, and necessary to charge the company, and that is, knowledge on the part of the company of the defect in the...