Skip to main content
· 9/15/1870

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Stumps

Citations

  • 55 Ill. 367

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—■positive and negative testimony—of their respective weight. In an action against a railroad company to recover for injuries alleged to have resulted from negligence on the part of the servants of the company in respect to ringing the bell on the engine, positive evidence as to that fact is entitled to more weight than negative evidence in relation to it.</p> <p>2. Negligence in railroads—what constitutes. A train consisting of thirteen empty freight cars was being pushed by an engine along the track on one of the streets in the city of Chicago, at the rate of about four miles an hour; there was a man stationed on the head car for the purpose of watching ahead, and another on the rear car to repeat signals from the former to the engineer, and while the men were attending to their duty in those respects, the train being in motion, a boy about seven years of age undertook to climb up on one of the cars, and, losing his hold, fell under the cars and was seriously hurt. In an action against the company, it was held, there was no negligence on their part in the management of the train ■ it was not incumbent on the company, under such circumstances, to place a guard on every car, to keep persons off.</p> <p>3. While a railroad company is held to a very high degree of care and diligence in operating its road through the public streets of a city, yet the care and caution in this respect are required to be exercised in reference to the proper uses of the streets as a thoroughfare for travel, rather than to safety of persons in wrongfully getting on their cars when running.</p> <p>4. The duty imposed upon the company does not require them to use every absolutely necessary precaution to avoid injury to individuals, or to have employed any particular means which it may appear, after an accident has occurred, would have avoided it; but they are only required to use every reasonable precaution, such as would have been adopted by a very prudent person, prior to the

Judges: Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.