St. Louis, Jacksonville & Chicago Railroad v. Terhune

Citations

• 50 Ill. 151

Syllabus

<p>1. New trial—conflict of evidence. Where there is a conflict of evidence, it is the province of the jury to determine, from all the facts and circumstances, the weight to which it is entitled, and their finding will not be disturbed, unless it is unsupported by the proof.</p> <p>2. Negligence—what constitutes. An omission to perform a duty imposed by statute, is, prima facie negligence.</p> <p>3. So, in a suit against a railroad company for damages resulting from a failure to comply with the requirements of the statute, relative to sounding the whistle or ringing the bell at public road crossings, an instruction which informed the jury that such omission was prima facie negligence was properly given.</p> <p>4. Former decisions. In the case of the Galena & Chicago Union R. R. Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 271, it was held, that it was a question of fact, for the jury to determine, whether such omission was negligence; but the statute imposing that duty upon railroad companies, had been repealed as to that company, and hence it was a question arising under the common law, whether such omission was negligence.</p>