{
  "id": 2837886,
  "name": "Kate O'Rourke, Administratrix, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Rourke v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "593",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. App. 593"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. App. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2564669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/108/0565-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 5158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.472251516399382e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4854493447301368
    },
    "sha256": "8b6ed9c39435df994d8be4ce552e48871a3725a8e00a2181bb6fcbaf0d222410",
    "simhash": "1:c855cd95169dea98",
    "word_count": 865
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:27.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kate O\u2019Rourke, Administratrix, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff in error\u2019s declaration is the only error complained of in this case.\nThe declaration, which is of many counts and great length, in substance charges that plaintiff in error\u2019s intestate was, while in a drunken condition, received by defendant in error as a passenger on its train at East St. Louis, to be transported to Shawneetown. That his intoxicated condition was apparent and known to defendant in error\u2019s servants at the time he was so received as a passenger. That his state of intoxication increased after he was aboard the train and that when-the train reached the town of Ashley, situated about fifty miles from East St. Louis, he was in such a state of intoxication that he was mentally incapable of caring for himself, and that defendant, knowing his said condition permitted him to leave its car and wander upon its platform at said station and that when he attempted to re-enter said car while it was still standing motionless on its tracks the defendant in error, by its servants, wilfully and negligently refused to permit him to re-enter its car and continue his journey, but then and there abandoned him leaving him on the said platform in said drunken condition, knowing that he was by reason thereof unable to care for himself.\nThat the place he was so abandoned was a dangerous one, being the point where the defendant in error\u2019s tracks were crossed by the tracks of the Illinois Central Eailroad. That the said dangerous place was well known to defendant in error. - That he was abandoned there about nine o\u2019clock p. m., and that about four o\u2019clock the following morning plaintiff in error while still in said intoxicated condition wandered on the tracks of the Illinois Central Eailroad, and was struck and killed by a fast train on said road without negligence of the agents and servants of said road. That the abandonment of the deceased at such a dangerous place- while he was, through such intoxication, mentally incapable of caring for himself was the negligence which caused his death.\nThe facts alleged if proved would warrant a verdict for plaintiff. If the plaintiff was as the declaration alleges, in such a mental state- of intoxication as to be incapable of caring for himself, the question of contributory negligence would not be involved in the case. The degree of incapacity from drunkenness would control the question of due care, or negligence of both plaintiff and defendant. If plaintiff was, through intoxication, so bereft of reason that he was without intelligence to care for himself and while in that condition and known by defendant to be in that condition he was abandoned in a known place of danger where injury would be likely to result, such facts would constitute negligence.\nIt is a case stated and not a question of insufficient proof with which we are now dealing. We are of the opinion that the declaration states a case. The case of Burke v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 108 Ill. App. 565, and cases cited in that opinion, clearly sustain the views we have expressed in this case.\nThe trial court should have overruled the demurrer, and for this error the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer.\nReversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. W. Pillow and Bartley & Bartley, for plaintiff in error.",
      "J. M. Hamill, and C. P. Hamill, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kate O\u2019Rourke, Administratrix, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Defendant in Error.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 289 \u2014what care required as to intoxicated passenger. Where a railroad company abandons an intoxicated passenger at a dangerous place on its platform, the degree of the passenger\u2019s incapacity from drunkenness controls the question of due care or negligence of both parties.\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 430 \u2014when intoxication is not contributory negligence. Where a railroad company abandoned a passenger at a dangerous place on its platform while the passenger was in such a mental state of intoxication as to he incapable of caring for himself, the question of contributory negligence is not involved.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 452 \u2014when declaration for death of intoxicated passenger is sufficient. In an action for the death of an intoxicated passenger from the negligence of a railroad company, a declaration stating in effect that the passenger was, through intoxication, so bereft of reason that he was without intelligence to care for himself and while in that condition and known by defendant to be in that condition was abandoned in a known place of danger, where injury would be likely to result, and that by reason thereof he was killed, states such facts as constitute actionable negligence.\nError to the Circuit Court of Gallatin county; the Hon. William H. Green, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nRehearing denied October 29, 1913.\nG. W. Pillow and Bartley & Bartley, for plaintiff in error.\nJ. M. Hamill, and C. P. Hamill, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0593-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 618
}