The Toledo v. Grush

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Citation: 1873 WL 8190,67 Ill. 262,16 Am.Rep. 618
• Parties: THE TOLEDO, WABASH AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO.v.ANDREW J. GRUSH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

67 Ill. 262

1873 WL 8190 (Ill.)

16 Am.Rep. 618

THE TOLEDO, WABASH AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

v.ANDREW J. GRUSH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1873.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. A. J. GALLAGHER, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case, by Andrew J. Grush, against the Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Company, to recover damages for a personal injury received by the former in stepping through a hole in the platform of defendant's station. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment of $1000 for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

Messrs. NELSON & ROBY, for the appellant.

Messrs. EDEN & ODOR, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE MCALLISTER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, brought by appellee in the Macon circuit court, against appellant, to recover for an injury received by the former, in stepping through a hole in the platform of appellant's railroad station. Appellee recovered in the court below, and the only question made upon this appeal is, as to the sufficiency of the evidence. This case is not like that of Gillis v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 59 Penn. St. R. 129, cited by appellant's counsel. That was a case where the plaintiff went upon the platform from mere curiosity and was injured by its fall. It was held, that not being upon the platform lawfully, as a passenger, or for the transaction of business, he could not recover.

In the case under consideration, the plaintiff lawfully entered upon the platform, by the direction of his employer, to see that certain freight belonging to the latter, and which had arrived at the station by appellant's road, was properly taken care of, and while upon the platform, between five and six o'clock p. m., for that purpose, and looking for the agent, he accidentally stepped through a hole in the platform, causing a severe internal injury, most satisfactorily established by the evidence.

He being lawfully there, and free from negligence, the only question remaining is, whether the circumstances would imply negligence on the part of appellant or its servants.

The obligation of care on the part of a railroad company extends to all the accessories of its business, among which are stations or depots. These must be constructed and arranged with care, properly lighted when dark, and otherwise made safe and convenient for persons lawfully entering therein for the transaction of business. But in these, as in...