Northwestern Railroad v. Hack

Citations

• 66 Ill. 238

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and servant—liability of master for act of s&rmnt done while in the disehan-ge of his duty. In this case, a boy aged between ten and eleven years got upon the steps of one of the cars of a railroad while the train was in motion, and was holding to the railing, when a servant of the railway company, employed to clean the cars and secure them, and whose duty it was to keep persons out of the same, while in the discharge of that duty, kicked the boy’s hand and thereby loosened his hold and caused him to fall between the cars, which resulted in his being run over and killed. In a suit against the company by the administrator of the deceased to recover damages for the wrongful act, it was urged that the act of the servant was outside of his duty, and therefore the company was not liable: Held, that while the act itself was not in the line of duty of any employee of the company, yet, if it was done whilst in the discharge of his duty to require persons to leave the cars and to prevent their remaining thereon, the company was liable. v</p> <p>2. Evidence—impeaching witness—foundation to contradict witness. AVliere it was sought to impeach a witness by showing that, previously, in giving an account of the transaction, he said nothing about a certain matter testified to by him, and the only foundation laid for the contradiction was to ask the witness whether he had given the same version of the occurrence on both occasions, and his answer that he had: Held, that the proper foundation was not laid; that the witness should have been specifically asked whether he omitted the statement which was offered to be proved, before contradictory evidence could be received.</p> <p>3. Same—recalling witness for further cross-examination a matter of discretion. Where the court refused to permit a witness to be recalled for further cross-examination for the purpose of laying a foundation to impeach him by contradictory evidence as to prior statements: Held, that such refusal co