Skip to main content
· 9/15/1877

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. Hart

Citations

  • 87 Ill. 529

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—rule as to train passing station. A rule of a railway company prohibiting freight trains from passing between a station house and a standing passenger train while receiving or discharging passengers, has for its object the protection of passengers between the standing train and the passenger house, and not that of persons, at a distance away, carelessly walking on the track; and a failure to observe the rule, of itself, will not render the company liable for an injury to a person carelessly walking upon the track, some distance from the station.</p> <p>2. Same—on part of injured person. Where a plaintiff carelessly walked upon the track of a railroad, only a few steps south of an approaching train, without looking north to see if there was danger, and paid so little heed as not. to hear the bell or whistle when sounded, or notice the calls of persons warning him of danger, and was run over by the engine, not moving at a high rate of speed, and there was no proof that the servants of the company wantonly or wilfully caused the injury, it was held, that the plaintiff’s negligence was so gross as to preclude a recovery of damages by him, in a suit against the company.</p> <p>3. Same—excuse for want of care. It is no excuse for a party entering upon a railroad track to travel along the ties, in not-first looking behind him to see if any train is approaching, that the company had, before, been in the habit of moving its trains going in such direction over another and different track.</p> <p>4. It is the duty of every person about to cross a railroad track to approach it cautiously, and ascertain if there is danger in crossing; otherwise he can not recover for an injury thereby received; and a still higher degree of care and vigilance is required where the party is, without right, traveling on foot along the track.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that defendant need not personally touch another person because battery may be committed by the unlawful touching by defendant or by any other substance put in motion by defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sheldon

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.