Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. v. Rice

Citations

• 144 Ill. 227
• 33 N.E. 951
• 1893 Ill. LEXIS 1124

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence — degree of care required of person injured. Where a plaintiff, through no fault of his, is suddenly placed in a position of great danger of losing his life, and exercises such care for his safety as ordinary care and prudence may require of one in his situation, his right of action,, other wise good, will not be defeated by the fact that it might have been possible for him to have escaped by a different course, in safety.</p> <p>3. Where a plaintiff jumped from a hand-car on a bridge to the ground to avoid being run over by a train, an instruction that does not hold him to the exercise of reasonable care in selecting his means of escape, but is calculated to lead the jury to believe that the court intended to limit their inquiry to the care exercised by him in making the jump from the hand-car, would be clearly erroneous.</p> <p>3. Same — instructions construed. An instruction in such a case, telling the jury they must believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, “ while in the exercise of due care, caution and prudence, * * * was forced to jump from a hand-car,” can not be held to mean less than that the plaintiff was required to show that he was exercising due care in being on the car at the time and place he was forced to jump. Its reasonable interpretation is not merely that plaintiff must have made the jump with due care, but that he was exercising due care when forced to jump.</p> <p>4. An instruction that if the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant as section foreman, and while in the performance of his duty in helping to repair a bridge, and while in the exercise of due care, etc., was forced to jump from a hand-car on such bridge to the ground to save his life, “through the neglect and wrongful acts proven of the servants of the defendant in wrongfully running a freight train,” etc., is not open to the objection that it assumes the defendant was guilty. The instruction would have been bet