The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Ebert
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 74 Ill. 399,1874 WL 9149 |
| Parties | THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.CARL EBERT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JNO. N. JEWETT, and Mr. CHARLES T. ADAMS, for the appellant.
Messrs. BRANDT & HOFFMAN, for the appellee.
This was an action on the case, brought to the Cook circuit court, by Carl Ebert against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, for an injury sustained by a collision of one of the trains of that company. The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at ten thousand dollars. On motion made by defendants for a new trial, the plaintiff's attorney remitted six thousand dollars of the finding, whereupon the court overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment for the balance, being four thousand dollars, and the defendants appeal.
The errors assigned are, that the verdict is against the law and the evidence, and the damages excessive.
We are of opinion, after a careful perusal of the testimony, that the evidence sustains a verdict against the defendants. The accident happened on the grounds of the company, on a cold, blustering, snowy day, in January, 1873; a day on which one exposed to its blasts would use all the expedients at his command to ward off, or at least temper its severity. So it was with this plaintiff. He was employed hauling ice, and was muffled up to protect himself from the cold, going along at a slow pace with his load. On his route were several tracks of the defendants, which it was necessary for him to cross. These tracks, or some of them, ran into Buckingham's elevator, and as he was about crossing track No. two, so called, about forty feet from the elevator, a train of cars, not drawn, but propelled from the rear by an engine, ran into the wagon, pushed the horses and plaintiff into the elevator, killing the horses and seriously crippling the plaintiff, disabling him from the performance of the labor to which he is accustomed.
There was no outlook upon the train; no flagman at the crossing, and no means used by the servants of the company to apprise plaintiff of the approach of the train, though one or two witnesses testified the bell was rung, and one Dormedy, an employee at the elevator, testified that he made every effort he could, to notify plaintiff of the approach of the train, but that he was unheeded. It does not appear that plaintiff made any special effort to see if any train was approaching on that track. He says he saw cars on it, but they were not in motion.
It was great negligence of the company in failing to have some person on the train on top of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith
... ... 313; Groth v. Thomann, 110 ... Wis. 488; Marsden v. Johnson, 89 Ill.App. 102; ... Natchez Co. v. McLain, 33 So. 723; Nonforton. v ... Brick ... 240; Railroad Co. v. Watson, 78 S.W. 176; ... Railroad Co. v. Ebert, 74 Ill. 399; Telephone ... Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 743, 41 So. 263; ... ...
-
Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450
...Co., 64 Wis. 425; Post v. Olmstead, 47 Neb. 893; Chicago v. Kimball, 18 Ill.App. 240; Railroad Co. v. Watson, 78 S.W. 176; Railroad Co. v. Ebert, 74 Ill. 399; Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 743, 41 So. 263; Perkins v. Guy, 55 Miss. 182; Cavanah v. State, 56 Miss. 308; Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 5......
-
Henderson v. Dreyfus.
...v. Story, 104 Ill. App. 132; Belt R. Co. v. Charters, 123 Ill. App. 322; Sackheim v. Miller, 136 Ill. App. 132 (see, contra, Illinois C. R. Co. v. Ebert, 74 Ill. 399); Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa, 559, 115 N. W. 233; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Cone, 37 Kan. 567, 15 Pac. 499; Steinbuchel ......
-
Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
...negligence. Schwanenfeldt v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 80 Neb. 790, 115 N.W. 285; Coulter v. G. N. Ry. Co., 5. N.D. 568, 67 N.W. 1046; Ry. Co. v. Ebert, 74 Ill. 399; Pendroy v. G. N. Ry. Co. 17 N.D. 433, 117 N.W. In Ry. Co., v. Ebert, supra, the accident happened on the grounds of the company, o......