Wilson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1904
• Citation: 210 Ill. 603,71 N.E. 398
• Parties: WILSON v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

210 Ill. 603

71 N.E. 398

WILSON

v.ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 23, 1904.

Error to Appellate Court, Fourth District.

Action by George W. Wilson against the Illinois Central Railroad Company.From a judgment of the Appellate Court(109 Ill. App. 542), affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.Affirmed.

This is an action in case, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error company in the city court of East St. Louis, St. Clair county, on October 31, 1902, to recover damages for a personal injury received by plaintiff in error in being run over by an engine in the railroad yards of defendant in error in the city of East St. Louis on September 4, 1902.The declaration contains three counts-the first charging general negligence; the second, that the bell of the locomotive, which ran over the plaintiff below, was not kept ringing as required by a city ordinance; and the third, that the locomotive was driven at a rate of speed in excess of that allowed by another provision of the ordinance.To the declaration the plea of the general issue was filed.At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the trial court, on motion of the defendant, instructed the jury to find the defendant not guilty, and a verdict was returned accordingly.Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment was entered on the verdict for the defendant.From this judgment an appeal was taken to the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the city court.The present appeal is prosecuted from such judgment of affirmance.The facts, as stated by the Appellate Court, are as follows:

‘Appellee was the owner of railroad yards in East St. Louis, with parallel tracks running north and south.The east track was its main line, on which ran all of its trains from St. Louis and East St. Louis in a southerly direction.It was the custom of appellee to take all of its engines, coming into East St. Louis from the north and south, down this main track to its roundhouse, situated in the south end of the yards.The Terminal Railroad Asociation of St. Louis operated a belt railway and switching yards, a part of which lay immediately east and along the side of appellee's yard.One of the tracks in the Terminal Railroad Asociation's yard is known as the ‘Conlogue track.’The most westerly track of the Terminal Railroad Association, and the one next to the yards of appellee, was known as the ‘delivery track,’ upon which it made deliveries to appellee, and received cars from it.All the tracks are about eight feet apart, except the said delivery track and the main track of appellee, which are about six feet eight inches apart.Appellant was employed by the Terminal Railroad Association as a per diem clerk.It was his duty to take the numbers and initials of cars, see that they were properly sealed, and ascertain whether they were loaded or empty.At about 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the day in question he came from the south, between the delivery track of the Terminal Railroad Association and the main track of the appellee, taking the numbers and initials of a number of cars that were standing on the delivery track.He reached the north end of the delivery track about the time that the switching crew of the Terminal Railroad Association had set in a car on the delivery track, and stepping back, astride the easterly rail of the main track of appellee-that is, with one foot standing between the rails and one outside-he proceeded to take the number and initials of the car that had just been placed upon the delivery track.While he was thus standing on the track, one of appellee's engines was backing down the main track to the roundhouse, moving with the tender toward the south, at a speed probably not exceeding 10 miles an hour.The yard clerk employed in the yards of appellee, who was some 150 feet beyond appellant, seeing his peril, attempted to attract his attention by hallooing to him.The engineer on the Terminal Railroad engine, 15 or 20 feet from appellant, likewise hallooed to him two or three times, and, failing to attract his attention, sounded the danger signal with the whistle on his engine eight or ten times.About...