Skip to main content
· 5/16/1889

Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Snyder

Citations

  • 128 Ill. 655
  • 21 N.E. 520
  • 1889 Ill. LEXIS 943

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—directing what the verdict shall he. If there is evidence on the part of the plaintiff tending to prove the issues involved, it is not proper to take the case from the jury by an instruction to find for the defendant. ”</p> <p>2. Where a right of action fairly depends upon the effect or weight of testimony, the case is one for the consideration and determination t of the jury, under proper directions as to the principles of law involved. It should never be withdrawn from them unless the testimony be of such a conclusive character as to compel the court, in the exercise of . a sound judicial discretion, to set aside a verdict returned in opposition to it.</p> <p>3. Fellow-servants—question of fact for the jury. In an action against a railway company, to recover for the death of a conductor on the defendant’s road, caused by the negligence of another servant in charge of a semaphore, the defendant asked, and the court gave, an instruction embodying the rule as to the liability of a master to one servant for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, which was numbered. 1. The defendant asked the court to submit this question : “At the time of the accident causing S.’s death, did the usual duties of S., and T., the semaphore attendant, bring them habitually together, so that they could exercise a mutual influence upon each other promotive of proper caution?” The court submitted the same, with this addition: “So as to make them co-employes in the same line of employment, as explained in defendant’s instruction No. 1 Held, no error in the modification of the question, as it did not require the jury to pass upon the law.</p> <p>4. Verdict—general verdict, and special findings—whether inconsistent. A special finding of a jury that the employes of one of the defendant railways, in charge of its train when it crossed the track of another road, were not guilty of negligence that materially contributed to the injury, is not inconsistent with a gener

Judges: Magruder

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.