Illinois Central Railroad v. Houck

Citations

• 72 Ill. 285

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—presumptions and burden of proof to rebut. Although the prima facie presumption from an explosion of the boiler of a locomotive is, that there was negligence, either in testing or putting the materials together, when constructed into a boiler, or that it has been negligently used by subjecting it to too high a degree of pressure of steam, yet, when suit is brought by the engine-driver who had charge of the engine, or his representatives, against the person owning the engine, there is ho presumption in his favor that the explosion was caused by defects in the boiler rather than from its negligent use, and the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the engine-driver was not himself guilty of negligence which caused the explosion, or, if guilty, that his negligence was slight and that of the defendant gross.</p> <p>2. Same—engine-driver carrying more steam than rules of company allow can not recover damages caused by explosion. In a suit by the representative of an engine-driver against the owner of the engine, to recover for the killing of the driver by the explosion of an engine in his charge, the plaintiff can not recover if it appears that the explosion was the result of the carelessness of the engine-driver in not keeping sufficient water in the boiler, and in carrying more steam than, hy the rules prescribed by the owner, he was allowed to carry.</p>