The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Maffit
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | WALKER |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8230,67 Ill. 431 |
| Parties | THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.DAVID A. MAFFIT. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
67 Ill. 431
1873 WL 8230 (Ill.)
THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
DAVID A. MAFFIT.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
January Term, 1873.
[67 Ill. 432]
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. A. J. GALLAGHER, Judge, presiding.The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The instructions given for the plaintiff, referred to, are as follows:
“4. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the persons in charge of the engine in question saw the top of the plaintiff's wagon as it approached the crossing, and continued to see the same until the wagon reached such crossing, and that persons approaching such crossing from the east could not see a train until they were in about thirty feet of such crossing, then it was the duty of such persons in charge of said train to have slackened the speed of said engine, and to have warned the plaintiff of its approach by sounding its whistle or ringing a bell, and a failure to do so would be negligence on the part of the defendant.”
“5. The court instructs the jury, on behalf of the plaintiff, that, if they believe, from the evidence, that the agents of the defendant were guilty of gross negligence, or wantonly and recklessly ran their engine into the wagon of the plaintiff on the crossing of a public highway, then the jury may assess against the defendant, not only the value of the property destroyed and compensation for the personal injuries received by the plaintiff, but such additional amount as a punishment to the defendant for such wantonness and recklessness, as the jury, from all the evidence, may deem just and proper, the aggregate not to exceed the amount claimed in the declaration.”
“7. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff was guilty of some negligence in approaching the crossing where he was injured, still if the jury believe, from the
[67 Ill. 433]
evidence, that the defendant was guilty of negligence in running its train, at the place where such collision occurred, and that such negligence of defendant was greater than the negligence of the plaintiff, then the jury should find for the plaintiff.”Messrs. NELSON & ROBY, for the appellant.
Messrs. CREA & EWING, and Mr. A. B. BUNN, for the appellee.
Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action on the case, brought by appellee, in the Macon circuit court, against appellant, for personal injury and loss of property, alleged to have been occasioned by appellant in running...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Sykes
...62 Ill. 326; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Waddlesworth, 43 Ill. 66; St. L. & A. etc. R. R. Co. v. Manly, 58 Ill. 306. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Hillmer, 72 Ill. 235; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482; T. ......
-
Morris v. Gleason
...B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Van Patten, 64 Ill. 510; [1 Ill.App. 513] St. L. & S. E. R. R. Co. v. Britz, 72 Ill. 256; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431. That negligence is a question for the jury under the circumstances of each particular case, and an instruction which tells the jury what con......
-
The Vill. of Gibson v. Johnson
...51 Ill. 333; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 451; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffitt, 67 Ill. 431; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 82 Ill. 198; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Triplett, 38 Ill. 482. Where the negligence of the plaintiff materi......
-
The Vill. of Warren v. Wright
...R. Co. v. Payne, 49 Ill. 499; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Murray, 62 Ill. 326; Baldwin v. Killian, 63 Ill. 550; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 Ill. 431; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Mock, 72 Ill. 141. Messrs. D. & T. J. SHEEAN, for defendant in error; upon the question of the duty of a city to keep it......