The Keokuk Packet Co. v. John Henry.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BREESE
• Citation: The Keokuk Packet Co. v. John Henry., 50 Ill. 264, 1869 WL 5217 (Ill. 1869)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1869
• Parties: THE KEOKUK PACKET COMPANYv.JOHN HENRY.

50 Ill. 264

1869 WL 5217 (Ill.)

THE KEOKUK PACKET COMPANY

v.JOHN HENRY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1869.

APPEAL from the Alton City Court; the Hon. HENRY S. BAKER, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case brought in the court below, by John Henry, against the Keokuk Packet Company, to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff, resulting, as is alleged, from the negligence of the officers of one of the boats of the company, in not affording the plaintiff proper time and facilities for leaving said boat. The declaration contains four counts, the first of which sets forth, substantially, the alleged cause of action, as follows: That on the 1st of June, A. D., 1867, the defendant was, and still is a corporation, under the name and style of the Keokuk Packet Company, owning and possessed of a line of passenger packets, which it operated. Plaintiff avers, on the day and year aforesaid, he accompanied a lady, his daughter, who then and there became a passenger on the steamer Rob Roy, a passenger packet, owned and operated by the defendant, in said line; that as soon as said boat was landed at the wharf at the City of Alton, with all reasonable care and diligence, went on board said boat to conduct and escort said lady, his daughter, safely to the cabin of said boat, as it was customary in such cases to do.

Plaintiff avers that while he was in the act of escorting said lady on said boat, and up the stairs to the cabin thereof, without delay or stoppage, and with due diligence and care, said boat directed and managed by the servants of the defendant, then and there began to back out from the landing without the knowledge of the plaintiff; and plaintiff avers that it was the duty of the defendant to ring a bell or blow a whistle attached to said boat, before said boat began to leave the landing, in order to give warning to parties having temporary business on board said boat.

The plaintiff avers that said boat, so under the direction and management of the servants of the defendant, was then and there making a race of the trip from St. Louis, to ports of destination up the Mississippi river with another boat, and that defendant conducted the boat Rob Roy with such gross carelessness and negligence in preparing to leave, and in leaving the landing, by not giving warning as aforesaid, nor otherwise thereof, that plaintiff did not, and could not become aware of such preparation and departure until the Rob Roy was in motion and backing away from shore. Plaintiff avers that with all due and proper diligence he had not time to reach the top of the stairs leading from the boiler deck of said Rob Roy to the cabin deck thereof, with his daughter, when he first perceived said boat in motion. That upon becoming aware said boat was in motion and leaving shore, he turned, and with all reasonable diligence and care retraced his steps to the guards of said boat to the proper and usual place for getting on and off said boat, for the purpose of being allowed to depart and alight from said boat in the proper manner. Plaintiff avers that the stage-planks, and other planks used for getting on and off said boat, were drawn on to said boat, and that the servants of defendant directing and managing said boat were present and aware that he desired to alight from said boat and get on shore, but defendant did not stop the boat and land him in the usual and proper manner, or in any other way, or offer so to do; but refused so to do, and continued to recede from shore and forced plaintiff to leap to shore from the guards of said boat, to prevent himself from being carried away from home, and subjected to privations and false imprisonment. And plaintiff avers that in so leaping, with all prudence, care and diligence, from the guards of said boat to the shore, he, the plaintiff, was violently thrown to the ground and his ankle dislocated and several bones of his leg fractured, and the plaintiff otherwise injured.

Among other instructions given for the plaintiff, were the following:

“2nd. That it is unlawful for one boat to run a race with another, and if the jury believe from the evidence, that the Rob Roy was engaged in a race with the Phil. Sheridan on the trip at the time the injury complained of happened to the plaintiff, and that on account of such racing the officers in charge of the Rob Roy did not allow said boat to remain at the levee a reasonable length of time to enable the plaintiff, with proper diligence, to escort his daughter to the cabin of the boat and return and get off the boat in the usual and customary manner, and in consequence thereof the plaintiff was injured, as set forth in the declaration, they will find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages in...