St. Louis, Vandalia & Terre Haute R. R. v. Dunn

Citations

• 78 Ill. 197

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence in railroad—omission to give signal, and running at too TtzyA a rate of speed in a city. A person was crossing a street in a city, after night-fall, in which there were four railroad tracks, upon which trains were passing at short intervals at all hours of the day, and just as he was stepping upon the farthest track in the direction he was going, he was struck by an approaching train, and injured to such an extent that he soon afterward died. The company employed a watchman, whose duty it was to warn persons crossing the tracks of danger from approaching trains, and, in view of the character of the thoroughfare, such a precaution was proper and necessary. But, at the time of the accident, the watchman was not present attending to his duty, and the train was running at a much higher rate of speed than was allowed by an ordinance of the city, and it was a question whether a bell was rung or a whistle sounded upon the engine: Held, under the circumstances, an omission of any one of the duties mentioned would constitute gross negligence on the part of the company.</p> <p>2. Contributory negligence. Upon a review of the facts in this case, it is held, there was no such contributory negligence on the part of the person injured as would relieve the company of liability. If he saw the head-light upon the locomotive, in the darkness, and in the absence of any signal or warning, either from the watchman or from the bell or whistle, he would probably be unable to discover that it was in motion, or if he saw the engine approaching, he had the right to suppose it was not moving at a rate of speed greater than was proper at that time and place, and to regulate his own conduct accordingly. The omission of proper precautions by the company would, under the circumstances, tend to relieve the party from the charge of negligence on his part.</p>