Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. Rosenfeld
Citations
- 70 Ill. 272
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — injury at street-crossing. In a suit against a railroad company for injury to the plaintiff, alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, it appeared the plaintiff was injured by a collision while attempting to cross the defendant’s track upon a public street; that there were two or more main tracks at the place of the accident, and that the plaintiff was detained with his horse and wagon by a train of cars of another company, on the track next to him, and that as soon as this train passed, he started to drive across the track, there being a train of defendant backing across the street on one of the other tracks, which struck his horse and wagon. It also appeared that this train was moving at the speed of four or five miles per hour, that the bell was being rung, that a sufficient number of men were in charge of the train, and that there was a flagman at the crossing in the discharge of his duty. The weight of evidence also showed that the flagman hallooed to plaintiff to stop, and made efforts to keep him from crossing. It was held, that, under this state of facts, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant could not be sustained.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that \an owner who has not set apart his property for [an exempt] use cannot get the benefit of [an] exemption merely because he rents or suffers the property to be used for such purposes\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Craig
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.