Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. Jones

Citations

• 76 Ill. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading and evidence—ground of action not stated in declaration. Where, in an action against a railroad company, to recover for injuries received at a public road crossing by a collision of the train with plaintiff’s wagon and team, the declaration alleged that the company neglected to keep the crossing in repair, there being no averment that the condition of the crossing contributed to the injury, but the gravamen of the action was the neglect to give the statutory sismal or warning before reaching the crossing, and neglect in not slackening the speed of the train: Held,, that evidence of the condition of the crossing was not admissible.</p> <p>2. Negligence—neglect of railroad company to give, signals at road crossings. In an action to recover damages against a railroad company for injuries received at a road crossing by a collision with plaintiff’s team, it is error to instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty of negligence from the mere fact that a bell was not rung or whistle sounded as required by law, regardless of the consideration whether the failure contributed to the accident or not.</p> <p>3. The omission to ring a bell or sound a whistle at a road crossing does not render a railroad company liable for injury to animals or to a person, unless it is made to appear the warning might have prevented the injury.</p> <p>4. In a suit against a railroad company to recover for injuries sustained by a collision with its train, it is error to instruct the jury that, if the train was behind time, a higher degree of care on the part of the company was required in approaching a road crossing. Such companies are bound at all times, in approaching road crossings, to observe due care and caution.</p> <p>5. Same—plaintiff's care not lessened at road crossing because train is behind its time. There is nothing which can relieve a person from the duty of using due care and caution at a railroad crossing of a public highway. Therefore it is erroneous to instruct t