Clark v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Citations

• 92 Ill. 43

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and servant—servant assumes the hazards of the service. An employee who enters upon any service assumes all the ordinary hazards arising from the performance of the duties of his voluntary engagement, and the employer will not be liable to him for an injury caused without his fault, when he does nothing to render the service more dangerous than it was known to be by the employee before he engaged in it.</p> <p>2. Same—negligence of lessee of railroad—liability of lessor. A person engaging in the service of a railway company as an engine-driver, with full knowledge of the dangers incident to the service, who receives an injury while in the discharge of his duties, by a collision with a train of another company using the same part of the road under a lease from his employer, through the negligence and recklessness of the employees of the lessee company in running the train in violation of the reasonable rules of the lessor company, can not recover damages of the company employing him, such an accident being one of the ordinary perils of the service, and not attributable to any negligence on the part of the employer.</p> <p>3. When two railway companies occupy and use a portion of the same road as a common track, the one as owner thereof, and the other as lessee, under proper rules and regulations as to the joint use so as to secure care and safety, the lessor company, in the employment of servants to operate its trains over such road, does not impliedly contract with such servants that the employees of the lessee company will observe strictly the rules adopted to secure safety in the running of trains over the common road, and will not be held liable to a servant for an injury caused by the negligence of the servants of the lessee company.</p>