Skip to main content
· 9/15/1873

Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Taylor

Citations

  • 69 Ill. 461

Syllabus

<p>1. Neqligeitce—liability of railroad company for injury to its servants. While it is true, that a common employer is not responsible to a servant for an injury caused by the negligence of his fellow-servant engaged in the same line of employment, yet it is the duty of a railway company, as employer, to provide safe structures, competent employees and engines, and all appliances necessary to the safety of the employed, and to adopt such rules and regulations for running its trains as will insure safety, and, having adopted them, to conform to them, or be responsible for consequences resulting from a departure from them.</p> <p>2. Where a station agent and switchman of a railway company was, while in the discharge of his duty, and without negligence on his part, on a dark night, struck by a car and killed in attempting to get to the switch in obedience to a signal, and it appeared that the switch from its construction was attended with danger, that the company had adopted no rules and regulations in respect to the switch, which was what is known as a “llying-switch,” and that the flat cars sought to be switched off, the front one of which struck the deceased, were not properly furnished with brakes, there only being one good brake on the four, and there was no light on the front car, as is usual of a dark night, it was held, that the company was liable for causing the death, as it was guilty of negligence in not having the train properly lighted and the cars furnished with sufficient brakes, and which neglect was the cause of the accident.</p> <p>3. Evidence—error in admission rendered ha/rmless and obviated. Where evidence is admitted to sustain the allegations of a count in a declaration, which may have been erroneous, yet, if all claim to recover on such count and the grounds therein stated, are abandoned, and a recovery had upon different grounds, stated in another count, the error in admitting the testimony, if any, is obviated, and its admission becomes harml

Judges: Breese

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.