The Toledo v. Fredericks

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 71 Ill. 294,1874 WL 8659
• Parties: THE TOLEDO, WABASH AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO.v.JACOB FREDERICKS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

71 Ill. 294

1874 WL 8659 (Ill.)

THE TOLEDO, WABASH AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

v.JACOB FREDERICKS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge, presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, except the amount of the judgment in the court below, which was $5000.

Messrs. HAY, GREENE & LITTLER, for the appellant.

Mr. N. M. BROADWELL, and Mr. WM. M. SPRINGER, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The negligence attributed to appellant, as a basis of recovery in this action, consists in the fact, the coupling apparatus of its cars was so improperly and unskillfully constructed as to be dangerous to the operatives, which was unknown to appellee when he engaged in its service, but which was, or could have been, known to appellant by the exercise of that degree of care the law imposes upon all railroad companies.

Appellee was employed as a switchman in the yards of the company at Springfield. It was his duty to couple cars and assist in making up trains. While engaged in the performance of his duties, his hand was caught between the deadwood on the engine and what is called the “ratchet-wheel,” attached to the caboose car, and was so badly crushed as to cause a very severe and permanent injury. He was in the act of attempting to couple the tender with the caboose car.

There can scarcely be a doubt the draw-bar on the caboose car was too short, which permitted the tender and car to come so close together as to cause the accident. The experiments subsequently made by the employees of the company show most conclusively the injury could have been produced in this way, and no other theory is or can be suggested consistently with the evidence. No doubt, the engine came against the car with great power, and, the springs at the end of the bars giving away, the tender and car were forced together. Had the bars been of the usual length, it seems almost certain the accident would have been avoided.

It is contended, if there was negligence in the construction of the coupling used, it was slight, and might have been overlooked by the most careful management. We can not concur in this view.

The proof shows there was a very radical defect in the manner of the construction of this particular coupling used on appellant's car. It is proven to have been positively dangerous, and so notorious was its reputation among the operatives in the yards, that its dangerous character ought to have been, or could have been, known by the exercise of reasonable diligence by the officers of the company whose duty it was to build and repair machinery.

Nor do we think the injury can be attributed to carelessness on the part of appellee. He had not been long in the employ of appellant, in that particular service.

It was the duty of the company to furnish suitable and safe machinery, and the law imposes upon all railroad...