Illinois Central Railroad v. Shultz

Citations

• 64 Ill. 172

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—in a raib'oad. Where a person.was engaged in unloading coal from a car upon a side-track of a railroad, by direction of an agent of the company, and while thus engaged was thrown from the car by reason of other cars being violently pushed against it by a locomotive, in charge of the servants of the company, whereby he was injured, it was held not to have been the duty of such person to be on the constant watch for approaching trains on the side track, but the law would impose upon the company the duty to use all necessary precaution, and to give proper .signals to warn of danger.</p> <p>2. In such casej ordinary diligence was all that was required of the party injured, to avoid injury, and the liability of the company would then be fixed, if it was guilty of negligence.</p> <p>3. Ooi£PAHATrvE negligence—of an instruction in respect thereto. In an action against a railroad company to recover for personal injuries to the plaintiff occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, an instruction was given that, if the jury believed from the evidence “that defendant was guilty of considerable negligence, and plaintiff was guilty of but little negligence,” they must find the defendant guilty: Held, that while the words “considerable” and “little” were not the most appropriate in comparing the negligence of the parties, and were objectionable, still, in view of the evidence, which seemed to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, and was so found by the jury, the instruction could not have misled them.</p>