Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. Stumps

Citations

• 69 Ill. 409

Syllabus

<p>1. Newtbial—on the evidence. Where there is a conflict in the-evidence, the general rule is, the jury are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, but where they capriciously disregard the testimony of five unimpeached witnesses, and rely solely upon the testimony of two little boys, aged seven and eleven years, simply because they desire to find a verdict in accordance with their testimony, a new trial should be granted.</p> <p>2. Negligence—ca/re required in running railroad train in a public street. A railroad company is to be held to the exercise of a very high degree of care in operating its road through the public streets of a city, and will not be permitted to omit with impunity- any reasonable duty that may tend to the safety of the public, who have an equal right with themselves to the free use of these thoroughfares.</p> <p>3. Same—railroad company not liable for pure accident. The law has not made railroad companies insurers against every casualty- that may happen in a street or highway, where they liav.e exercised the highest degree of care for the safety of the citizen consistently with a reasonable exercise of their franchise. The injury- in such cases must be attributed to inevitable accident, which no vigilance, however great, could foresee or avoid.</p> <p>4. Where a boy, aged about seven years, was injured while attempting to climb up the ladder of a freight car while in motion along a public street in a city, and it appeared that the train was not being run at an unlawful rate of speed, it moving not faster than four miles an hour, that the train was properly manned, with every employee at his station, and that the train was under perfect control, and being run with the greatest care and caution, it was held, that the company- was not liable.</p>