Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Elmore

Citations

• 67 Ill. 176

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—-failure to give statutory signal at crossing, prima facie evidence of. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages received by a collision with the train at a road-crossing, the court gave the following instruction for the plaintiff: “If the jury'believe, from the evidence, that the defendants, their agents and servants, omitted to ring a bell or sound a whistle in the manner required by law, such omission constitutes a prima facie case of negligence, and the defendant's are liable to plaintiff for the loss and damage proved to have been sustained by him by reason of such negligence:” Held,, that such instruction did not assume the absolute liability of the company for the omission to comply with the statute, and that the only construction to be given to it was, that the proof must show the damage was occasioned by reason of such neglect to ring the bell or sound the whistle, and therefore was not erroneous.</p> <p>2. Same—excuse for slight negligence on the pa/rt of the plaintiff. In the same case, the court also gave the following instruction for the plaintiff: “The jury are instructed that, if they believe, from the evidence, that a bell was not rung or a whistle sounded at a distance of eighty rods from the crossing, and kept ringing or whistling until the crossing was reached, and the plaintiff was lulled into security by reason of such neglect on the part of the defendant, then plaintiff would have the right to recover, even though he was guilty of slight negligence:” Held, that the instruction was not erroneous.</p> <p>3. Notwithstanding the neglect of a railroad company to give the statutory signal before approaching a road-crossing with its train, the traveler must exercise caution and prudence, but without such warning of danger his care would necessarily be less, and any injury to him, under such circumstances, must naturally be attributed, in a great degree, to the negligence of the company.</p>