{ "id": 2559818, "name": "Mobile and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Catherine Healy, Adm'x", "name_abbreviation": "Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. Healy", "decision_date": "1903-09-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "531", "last_page": "533", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "109 Ill. App. 531" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "109 U. S. 478", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8239 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/109/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 Ill. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3158231 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/176/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Ill. App. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2599962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/100/0586-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 326, "char_count": 5413, "ocr_confidence": 0.524, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5007718034281863e-07, "percentile": 0.6656251001506266 }, "sha256": "27f92a837d17254a6c0a016bc7abbb35aaa0663331107f809de33d39ef7c4f31", "simhash": "1:844e84b3b512b0a9", "word_count": 954 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:53.684315+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Mobile and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Catherine Healy, Adm'x." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Myers\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis case was before this court on appeal at the August term, 1901\u2014Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Catherine Healy, Adm\u2019x, etc., 100 Ill. App. 586\u2014to which reference is made for a sufficient statement of the facts and issues involved. By the opinion filed on former appeal the trial court was sustained in its ruling on the demurrer to appellant\u2019s plea to the jurisdiction of the City Court. It was also held that the construction and proximity of the tracks in a railroad yard, used by railroad employes in their daily work, are questions of engineering, within the doctrine of the Driscoll case, 176 Ill. 330, and Randall v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478, and that the law which requires a railroad company to furnish reasonably safe machinery, and to keep its tracks, engines, cars and appliances in reasonably safe repair, has no application to such engineering questions.\nAfter due consideration of the arguments here made and a review of authorities cited, we adhere to the conclusions reached on the former hearing.\nThe risks in working in a railroad yard, with many tracks lying close together, as appears in this case, can not be denied. But the danger is open and apparent. It is incident to the business of handling and switching cars, and the employe who voluntarily engages in that service must be held to assume the risk. This comes clearly within the general proposition that one who engages in a hazardous service is presumed to do so with a knowledge of the dangers incident to such service and assumes the risks of its ordinary hazards.\nThe question of negligence as to the closeness of the tracks being eliminated, the issues are confined to the charge of negligence in the declaration that the appellant permitted or allowed the door of the refrigerator car to be open and project into the space between the tracks, whereby appellee\u2019s intestate lost his life.\nAs this case must be remanded for another trial, we forbear discussion of the evidence further than to say, that after a careful examination of the record we are constrained to hold that the verdict is so manifestly against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to justify the conclusion that it must have been the result of prejudice, passion, sympathy or mistake.\nThe trial court by its ruling on the evidence and by the first of the defendant\u2019s given instructions, held to the opinion of this court on former appeal, that the charge of negligence in the relative proximity of the tracks was not a matter for the jury to consider, and yet, the first of plaintiff\u2019s given instructions authorizes a finding upon that question. The declaration should have been amended or the ins truetion modified to conform with the issue to be tried. The instruction was erroneous and highly misleading.\nAppellant is without just ground of complaint in the rulings of the trial court upon the admission and exclusion of testimony relating to the door fastener, especially as to that offered by appellee in rebuttal. Whether or not the door was provided with suitable fastenings to keep it open was not in issue as a cause of action; but as tending to prove that the door was standing open at the time of the accident, it was proper to show that it was not fastened back against the car, and for lack of fastenings could not be secured in place against the side of the car. Testimony in defense that the door was opened and fastened back, and that a hook and staple for that purpose was provided, was competent in proof that the door was not projecting into the space between the cars, but such proof made competent the testimony given in rebuttal.\nFor error in giving plaintiff\u2019s first instruction and for the reason that the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the judgment of the City Court is set aside and the cause remanded for a new trial,", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Myers" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lansden & Leek and Messick & Crow, attorneys for appellant.", "M. Millard and F. C. Smith, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mobile and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Catherine Healy, Adm'x.\n1. Master and Servant\u2014Servant Assumes the Ordinary .Risks of the Employment.\u2014The risks in working in a railroad yard with many tracks lying close together, is open and apparent. It is incident to the business of handling and switching cars, and the employe who voluntarily engages in that service must be held to assume the risk.\n2. Instructions\u2014Proximity of Railroad Tracks Not a Question for the Jury to Consider.\u2014The manner of constructing a railroad is an engineering question, and it is not a question for a court to submit to a jury whether the manner of construction of a railroad is proper or not.\n3. Evidence\u2014Admissible to Prove Car Door Was Standing Open.\u2014As tending to prove that a car door was standing open at the time of the accident, it is proper to show that it was not fastened back against the car, and for lack of fastenings could not be secured in place against the side of the car. Testimony in defense that the door was opened and fastened back, and that a hook and staple for that purpose were provided, was competent in proof that the door was not projecting into the space between the cars.\nTrespass on the Case.\u2014Death from negligent act. Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Silas Cook, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1903.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed September 10, 1903.\nLansden & Leek and Messick & Crow, attorneys for appellant.\nM. Millard and F. C. Smith, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0531-01", "first_page_order": 557, "last_page_order": 559 }