The Indianapolis v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 June 1875 |
| Citation | 78 Ill. 112,1875 WL 8432 |
| Parties | THE INDIANAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANYv.GEORGE W. F. SMITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case, by the appellee, against the appellant, to recover damages for the killing of plaintiff's mule, by a train of cars, at a public road crossing.
The declaration contains three counts, the first of which charges that the injury was caused by a neglect to ring a bell or sound a whistle within eighty rods of the crossing, as required by law. The second alleges that the defendant allowed weeds and vegetation to grow on its track and right of way, at the place where the injury occurred, to such a height and density that defendant's servants could not operate and use its locomotive and trains of cars with safety to person and property, and that, in consequence of its negligence in this respect, the plaintiff's mule was killed. The third count avers generally that plaintiff's mule was killed in consequence of the negligence of the defendant in running its train.
The defendant filed the general issue, and a trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the mule. The opinion of the court states the facts of the case sufficiently.
Mr. F. W. BURNETT, for the appellant.
Messrs. METCALF & BRADSHAW, for the appellee.
This action was brought to recover the value of a mule killed by a locomotive on appellant's road. No questions of law arise upon the record.
The mule had just escaped from the owner's inclosure, and was about to pass over the track, when it was struck by the engine, and killed. It was upon a crossing over a highway. At that point, the railroad makes a curve, and, on account of weeds which the company had suffered to grow upon its right of way, the view was so obstructed the mule could not be seen, and was not seen, by the engine-driver or fireman, approaching the track. Had it been seen in time, it may be it would have been practicable to have stopped the train, or at least to have slackened the speed, so as to have avoided the accident.
It was negligence in the company to permit or suffer weeds, or anything else, to grow upon its right of way to such a height as would materially obstruct the view of the highway. The safety of persons and property alike make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...is danger, and the employees in charge may be enabled to discover whether there is anything on the track." Indianapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 112, 114 (1875); see also Goodrich v. Sprague, 376 Ill. 80, 89, 32 N.E.2d 897 The third amended complaint reasonably informed Illino......
-
The Lake Erie v. Zoffinger
...brush to grow upon the right-of-way, so as to obstruct the view of the track: C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 454; I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 112. Where two juries have passed upon the facts of a case with like result each time, the verdict will not be disturbed unless cle......
-
The Pa. Co. v. Frana
...of an approaching train was negligence on the part of appellee's employer and must be attributed to appellee himself: Indianapolis & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 112; Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Hillmer, 72 Ill. 235. An ordinance of the city has the same force and effect as ......
-
St. Louis v. Pflugmacher
... ... L. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 112. Negligence, when it consists in the omission of a duty imposed by positive requirement of law, is a question of law: Stratton v. C. C ... ...