Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Railroad v. Bailey

Citations

• 145 Ill. 159
• 33 N.E. 1089

Syllabus

<p>1. Negligence—explosion of an engine—proof of skill and care of person killed. Where the engineer and firemen are killed by the explosion of the boiler of an engine, and there are no other persons cognizant of the manner in which the engineer was managing the locomotive at the time, in an action to recover for the killing of the engineer, it is competent to admit evidence tending to show that the deceased was a competent and careful engineer, for the purpose of rebutting any presumption arising from a want of skill on his part. So, also, it is competent to show the habits of the deceased in respect of care and caution, as tending to raise the presumption that he was in the exercise of due care and caution.</p> <p>2. Same—proof of reputed condition of an exploded engine. In an action to recover for the killing of one by the explosion of an unsafe engine, the court admitted evidence tending to show that the engine was regarded as dangerous, generally, by employés of the defendant company in the railroad yards where it was used as a switch engine. The other evidence clearly showed that the steam gauge and stop valves were so out of repair as to be practically useless, and that many of the stay rods inside the boiler were broken, and that the boiler was in other respects unsafe and insecure: Held, that the evidence of the reputed condition of the engine could not have been prejudicial to the defendant.</p> <p>3. Evidence—controlling by instructions. If evidence is admissible for any purpose, it should be admitted; and if it is improper for other purposes, its effect should be controlled by instructions.</p> <p>4. Instructions—need not be repeated. Where every legal proposition applicable to the facts, contained in instructions refused, is given in other instructions, there will be no error in the refusal, as the court is not required to repeat instructions to the jury.</p> <p>5. Same-—submitting questions of law to the jury. In an action to recover damages for causin