Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad v. Bingenheimer

Citations

• 116 Ill. 226
• 4 N.E. 840

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—starting car suddenly without notice to the servant attempting to get on same. A servant of a railway company whose duty it was, as soon as arriving cars were placed upon the wash-track, to go upon them and clean them for future use, attempted to get upon a car that had arrived and was standing at rest near the wash-track, to clean the same, when the locomotive attached thereto was started suddenly, without any signal or notice to the servant, and without due care on the part of the engineer to observe whether the servant was about to go upon the car, whereby the servant was thrown from the car steps and severely injured, he observing ordinary care: Held, that the facts so found by the trial and Appellate courts were sufficient to justify a recovery against the company by the servant.</p> <p>2. Jdbob—competency—sympathy with one of the parties. A juror called in an action by a servant against a railway company to recover damages for the loss of a leg from alleged negligence, stated that if he had any sympathy it was with the plaintiff, and that he would have none for the defendant, but that he knew of no reason why he could not try the ease fairly and impartially, that he would not violate his oath under any circumstances, and that he would endeavor to do justice between the parties: Held, that the juror was clearly competent.</p> <p>3. Instruction—based on facts which evidence tends to prove. If there is any evidence tending to show a certain fact or facts, it is not error to give an instruction to the jury based upon such fact or facts, if they find them from the evidence.</p> <p>4. Same—modification not changing its legal effect. The modification of an instruction by the insertion of words not changing its sense and effect, and not qualifying or limiting the doctrine of law therein stated, is no ground of error.</p>