The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Buckner

• Decision Date: 30 April 1862
• Citation: 81 Am.Dec. 282,28 Ill. 299,1862 WL 3308,18 Peck 299
• Parties: THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,v.CHARLES BUCKNER, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

28 Ill. 299
1862 WL 3308 (Ill.)
81 Am.Dec. 282
18 Peck (IL) 299

THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
CHARLES BUCKNER, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1862.

APPEAL FROM IROQUOIS.

It is negligence for a deaf person to drive an unmanageable horse across a railroad track, when a train is approaching; it is his duty to keep a look out and avoid the danger. It is no excuse that the horse rushed upon the track near a crossing, or was driven there to avoid the engine.

THIS was an action on the case by Buckner against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, brought to the Iroquois Circuit Court.

The jury found the defendant below guilty, and assessed Buckner's damages at $2,500. Motion for a new trial overruled. Buckner had his arm broken, and was otherwise injured; his horse was killed, and his wagon destroyed.

The facts, as they appear in this record, are substantially as follows:

On the 23rd day of August, 1860, a train of cars belonging to the appellant was returning from Gilman, whither it had been with empty cars, to Kankakee. The train consisted of an engine, tender and one way car; and reached Chebance, going northward, at about 4:25 P. M., an hour when there was no regular train due at that point, from either the north or the south.

There is some discrepancy in the testimony, as to the speed with which the train was moving. The witnesses, McLaughlin, Cooper and Vaughn, who were on the train, swear that they were going from seven to eight miles an hour, while the witnesses, Biglow, and Mr. and Mrs. Warner, think they were going much faster. At the whistling post, eighty rods below the depot, the whistle was blown, and the train came nearly

[28 Ill. 300]

to a stand. North of the depot was the regular public roadcrossing, with the railroad sign-board up. The appellant did not regard the crossing on the south as a road-crossing. The approaches to the track were perfectly level; no work had been done to the ground, no sign-boards put up; but as it was easy to pass, the public did cross at this point, and the company laid down plank to protect their rails.

When the cars were coming through the cut at the south, which was about four hundred feet below the crossing, the plaintiff was about fifty feet west, driving on to the track. When plaintiff's horse struck the side track, the train was at the corn crib, which was a hundred to a hundred and fifty feet below the crossing. The plaintiff had a young horse, and was driving very fast. He was...