{ "id": 4870885, "name": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Joseph Brelsford", "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central Railroad v. Brelsford", "decision_date": "1883-07-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "251", "last_page": "255", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "13 Ill. App. 251" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "94 Penn. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Penn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Bush. 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bush", "case_ids": [ 4386872 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/72/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Am. Dec. 489", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 S. C. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 356611 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/9/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Allen, 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "case_ids": [ 1196963 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/94/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. Y. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2168058 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/71/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2711522 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/72/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2804998 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5308067 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/70/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2635372 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314809 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/76/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ill. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2735144 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/93/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2655558 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/84/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 826392 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/89/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 826349 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/89/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ill. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2772590 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/86/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. H. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 Allen, 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "111 Mass. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2112988 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/111/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2595406 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/20/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Mich. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "49 N. Y. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 N. Y. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2061448 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/51/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. Y. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 Allen, 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "case_ids": [ 1196963 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/94/0531-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 533, "char_count": 8147, "ocr_confidence": 0.558, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0058778728907511e-07, "percentile": 0.5407052689172226 }, "sha256": "51a977e4bc5c954135fb08333cb1ce2fcfe4cf920db1e207923cceda0286b6a8", "simhash": "1:c2353fe256d934d9", "word_count": 1530 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:34.030277+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Joseph Brelsford." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pleasants, J.\nEarly in October, 1880, appellee shipped a mare and colt by the C. & N. W. R\u2019y at Racine, Wis., in a car of appellant, to be carried via Chicago to Onarga, Ill. lie selected the car, which was confessedly suitable and proper\u2014\u2022 loaded, tied, bedded and fed the mare in the afternoon and accompanied them to Chicago, where they arrived before daylight the next morning, apparently in good order. After giving her there, about seven o\u2019clock a. m., two quarts of oats and three gallons of water and leaving her \u201ca bunch\u201d of hay, and being told that the car would he promptly sent to appellant\u2019s yard, he took the morning passenger train for home.\nAbout half past six o\u2019clock p. m. of the same day the car was sent to appellant\u2019s yard, and went out that evening in its express freight train. At half past one o\u2019clock of the next morning it reached .Kankakee, where the conductor, hearing groans proceeding from it, looked in and finding the mare down, breathing heavily, bloated, sweating and struggling but unable to rise except upon her fore feet, without any external mark of violence, remained with her, doing all he could to help her, until they arrived at Onarga, near five o\u2019clock of the same morning. The colt was then well, but the mare grew worse and died shortly before noon of that day.\nAppellant brought this suit in assumpsit upon the alleged promise of defendant to take care of these animals and safely carry them from Chicago to Onarga and there safely to deliver them for plaintiff; and recovered judgment for $115.\nHis witnesses were of opinion that the mare\u2019s back was hurt by violence and that she died of lock-jaw in consequence; while those of defendant thought she died of flatulent colic, and their uncontradicted testimony was, that from Chicago to Onarga the train was very carefully handled, made few stops, was not once side-tracked and had an uncommonly smooth run.\nThus there was evidence tending to show that the injury, whether from sickness or from violence, was not the effect of any fault or negligence of the defendant in respect to the ineansoor manner of her carriage, and so, by necessary infer-* ence, that it was due to her own viciousness or restlessness, excited by the carriage, however careful, or by improper loading or tying by the plaintiff himself, or to other defects or causes originating in her vitality. For injuries thus occurring to live' freight the law does not hold the carrier liable, since it is not the effect of a breach on his part of any promise or duty implied by. his business. Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 218; Wharton on Negligence, 616; I. & St. L. R\u2019y Co. v. Jurey, 8 Bradwell, 160; C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Harmon, 12 Bradwell, 54; Smith v. Railroad Co. 12 Allen, 531; Mynard v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R. Co. 71 N. Y. 100.\nBut the court, at the instance of plaintiff, gave to the jury the following instruction: \u201c If you believe from the evidence that the mare was received bv the . defendant in good condition, not sick or hurt, \u2019 and that when the mare arrived at Onarga she was found down in the car, and that she was paralyzed in her hind parts' by some injury, not the result' of disease, then you are instructed that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that such injury did not result from any violence received by the mare while in transit from Chicago to- Onarga\u201d; which implies that if the injury was the result of violence received while in transit from Chicago to Onarga, the defendant was absolutely liable. This proposition is no more sound in respect to an injury received from violence than to one which is the result of sickness, and not at all as to either. The liability of defendant, if any, arises wholly from its own negligence; and although the mare had been hurt on the way from Chicago to Onarga by violence, yet if it was due to her own viciousness or restlessness caused by the peculiar character and propensities of the animal or to the conduct of the plaintiff, without fault on the part of defendant, it was not liable. And whatever presumption as to negligence, if any, may be raised by the condition in which the mare was found on arrival at Onarga, there was evidence in the case upon which the defendant had a right to the finding of the jury on the question thus excluded from its consideration.\nIt was therefore error to give the instruction, and we think it was not cured by other and proper ones also given.\nFor this error the judgment is reversed' and the cause remanded.\n^Reversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pleasants, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Charles H. Wood, for appellant;", "Messrs. Kay & Evans, for appellee;" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Joseph Brelsford.\n1. Injury to live freight.\u2014Where an injury to live freight while being shipped, whether from sickness or from violence, is not the effect of any fault or negligence of the carrier in respect to the means or manner of its carriage, but is due to its own viciousness or restlessness caused by the peculiar character and propensities of the animal, or by improper loading or tying by the plaintiff himself, or to other defects originating in its vitality, the carrier is not liable.\n2. Instructions.\u2014As the instruction given in this case implied that if the injury was the'result of violence received while in transit from Chicago to Onarga, the defendant carrier was absolutely liable, it was erroneous.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. O. T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed July 27, 1883.\nMr. Charles H. Wood, for appellant;\nthat where no external injury to the animal appears, the burden is on the plaintiff to show some negligence upon the part of the carrier, cited Hussey v. The Saragossa, 3 Woods (Fifth U. S. Circuit), 380; Cragin v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 51 N. Y. 61; Penn. v. Buffalo & Erie R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 205; Mich. S. & N. Ind. R. R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 166.\nIn the case of live stock, the carrier is not liable for loss or damage caused by the animals themselves, or by their own inherent defect or want of vitality: Ind. & St. L. R\u2019y Co. v. Jurey, 8 Bradwell, 160; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 Ill. 623; Lawson on Carriers, \u00a7 17; Evans v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 111 Mass. 142; Smith v. N. H. & N. R. R. Co. 12 Allen, 534; Rixford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 363.\nA carrier can limit its liability as to carriage of live animals where there is no negligence, and. such a contract is not within the statute against limiting liability: I. & St. L. R\u2019y Co. v. Jurey, 8 Bradwell, 160; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Hale, 2 Bradwell, 150; Cragin v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 51 N. Y. 61.\nMessrs. Kay & Evans, for appellee;\ncited R. S. Ch. 27, Ch. 114, \u00a7 83; M. D. T. Co. v. Theilbar, 86 Ill. 71; M. D. T. Co. v. Leysor, 89 Ill. 43.\nAs to a carrier limiting its common law liability: M. D. T. Co. v. Joesting, 89 Ill. 152; Erie R\u2019y Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 239; Boscowitz v. Adams Express Co. 93 Ill. 523; M. D. T. Co. v. Kahn, 76 Ill. 520; C. & N. W. R\u2019y Co. v. Sawyers, 69 Ill. 285.\nIf goods are lost by one carrier in a line of carriers composed of several, the consignor may have his action against either the first to whom the goods were delivered, or against any other one of the series if that one occasioned the loss: C. & N. W. R\u2019y Co. v. N. L. P. Co. 70 Ill. 217; St. L. & I. M. R. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 Ill. 293.\nAs to the common law liability of a carrier to deliver live animals: St. L. & S. E. R\u2019y Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504; I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Jurey, 8 Bradwell, 160; Mynards S. B. v. N. Y. R. R. Co. 71 N. Y. 180; Smith v. Railroad Co. 12 Allen, 531; Banbury v. S. C. R. R. Co. 9 S. C. 61.\nIn case of loss of property intrusted to a common carrier, the burden of showing that the loss was without his fault, rests upon him: Hunt v. Morris, 6 Martin (S. C.), 12 Am. Dec. 489; Black v. Goodrich Trans. Co. 14 Rep. 638; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 7 Rep. 25.\nThe fact of injury received is prima facie evidence of negligence: L. R. R. Co. v. Hedger, 9 Bush. 645; 2 Greenleaf on Ev. \u00a7 219; P. & R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Penn. 351; Smyrl v. Niolon, 2 Bailey, 421; Purney v. Wilson, 7 Yerger, 340; Ewart v. Stewart, 2 Bailey, 421; Turney v. Wilson, 7 Yerger, 340; Ewart v. Stewart, 2 Bailey, 157; Hunt v. Morris, 6 Martin, 676." }, "file_name": "0251-01", "first_page_order": 255, "last_page_order": 259 }