The Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Parties: THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYv.ANNA HOFFMAN, Admx.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

67 Ill. 287

1873 WL 8198 (Ill.)

THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

v.ANNA HOFFMAN, Admx.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1873.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case, by Anna Hoffman, administratrix of John Hoffman, deceased, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, to recover damages for wrongfully causing the death of the deceased. The deceased left a wife, the plaintiff, and an infant child. The facts of the case are presented in the opinion of the court. There was a verdict and judgment in the court below in favor of the plaintiff for $3000. The defendant appealed.

Messrs. WILLIAMS & BURR, for the appellant.

Messrs. ROWELL & HAMILTON, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, by appellee against appellant, for wrongfully causing the death of appellee's intestate, John Hoffman.

These are the prominent facts of the case: At the time of the injury, Hoffman was engaged in unloading wood for one Nichols, from a flat car standing on the west or main side track of appellant's railroad, at the station at Bloomington. On this side track there were, at the time, first, box cars, which were being unloaded by two other persons. South of them were two or three flat cars, on one of which was Nichols' wood, where Hoffman was at work. Still south of Hoffman there were one or two flat cars, and then several box cars. A freight train came in from the north about five o'clock P. M. with two cars to be left on this side track; it went along south on the main track until the hind end of the train came to the switch that connected this side track with the main track at the south end of the side track. The car from which the deceased was unloading wood was detached from the one next south of it, with a space between the bumper heads of the cars of about three feet. This train switched on to the side track and commenced backing up slowly to leave two cars on it: the other cars spoken of, standing south on the side track, were struck and moved up and caught deceased between the iron bumper heads of two cars, the one he was unloading wood from, and that next south of it, thereby causing his death.

It is urged by appellant, that the verdict of guilty is unsupported by the evidence. It is said there was such carelessness on the part of the deceased as to prevent a right of recovery.

Under the practice of the company, it was the business of Nichols, the consignee of the wood, to unload it. The deceased, then, was rightfully there at the time, engaged in that business. But, it is said, his duty in that respect required him to be on the car he was unloading, and, had he been there, he would have received no injury.

In the performance of the work of unloading the wood, he might properly have been about the car, and have got off and on it, as occasion might have required. How he came to be at the place where he received the injury, the evidence does not disclose. What reason had he to apprehend the spot to be one of especial danger? Had he been accustomed to be about the place, familiar with the movements of trains there and the frequency of switching on this side track, there might have been more reason for him to apprehend danger, but the evidence tends to show the...