Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Notzki
Citations
- 66 Ill. 455
Syllabus
<p>1. Hegligeitce—-failv/re to ring bell or sound whistle. In an action on the case against a railway company to recover for a personal injury, the court instructed the jury, for the plaintiff, that, if plaintiff was injured by one of the defendant’s engines at a street-crossing in the city of Peoria, and at the time there was no bell ringing or whistle sounding upon such engine, they should find for the plaintiff, unless he, by his own negligence, materially contributed to the injury: Held, that the instruction was erroneous. It should have left it to the jury to find whether the plaintiff was injured by reason of such omission of duty, and without this it was fatally defective.</p> <p>2. Same—instruction as to negligence of plaintiff. In a suit against a railroad company to recover damages received from an engine of the defendant at a street-crossing in a city, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that, if they believed, from the evidence, that, at the time the plaintiff was approaching the place of the accident, there was a switch-man in full view of the plaintiff, signaling the approaching train, and that plaintiff saw said switchman so signaling said train, then these facts were proper to be taken into consideration by the jury in determining whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in approaching the crossing of said railroad, which was refused: Held, that it was properly refused, because it did not submit the question whether the signal given was of such a character that a man of ordinaryv intelligence, seeing .it, would understand that it indicated a warning that the train was approaching, or that plaintiff understood the signal to be a warning of an approaching train.</p> <p>3. Same—evidence admissible to show plaintiff's want of care. In a suit against a railroad company to recover for injuries sustained at a crossing in the city of Peoria, by a collision of the defendant’s engine with the plaintiff’s team, as he was crossing the
Judges: McAllister
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.