Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Utley

Citations

• 38 Ill. 410

Syllabus

<p>1. Instructions—their requisites. Instructions should be framed with reference to the circumstances of the case on trial, and not be expressed in abstract and general terms, when such terms may mislead instead of enlightening a jury.</p> <p>2. Same—and herein, what constitutes negligence in a railroad in the killing of stock. In an action against a railroad company to recover the value of a horse found dead upon the track at a point where the company were required to fence, the horse having the appearance of having been killed by a locomotive, it was held to be erroneous to instruct the jury “ that the mere fact of the horse being killed on the track was evidence of negligence on the part of the company,” because that language would doubtless be understood as meaning that, if the horse were killed on the track, that fact, of itself, would prove negligence on the part of the company, when such is not the law.</p> <p>3. Had the instruction, however, merely meant that the fact of the horse being killed on the track was a circumstance which might be considered in determining the question whether the fences and cattle guards were good and sufficient, it would have been unobjectionable.</p> <p>4. Burthen of proof—as to negligence. If a horse takes fright and runs away, and gets upon a railroad at a point where the company is bound to fence, and is killed upon the track, the fact that the fence or cattle guard was insufficient at that point, will, alone, render the company liable.</p> <p>5. But if the horse, in its fright, gets upon the track by breaking a fence or leaping a guard which would be sufficient under all ordinary circumstances, then it would not devolve upon the company to prove an absence of negligence in running the train, but would only be liable upon its being proven they were guilty of carelessness or willful injury.</p> <p>6. Instructions—need not be repeated. It is not error to refuse an instruction, though correct in itself, if it is substantially em