{
  "id": 2860939,
  "name": "Alfred S. Greiner, Appellee, v. Pennsylvania Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greiner v. Pennsylvania Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,278",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 260"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4392,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "78a3539a3b5a0b3fd8e762aa76a2ad1351b952d3e8278fbdb0a70ff755dce261",
    "simhash": "1:907513c222270499",
    "word_count": 739
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alfred S. Greiner, Appellee, v. Pennsylvania Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, for appellant.",
      "Frederic R. De Young and Wiley W. Mills, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alfred S. Greiner, Appellee, v. Pennsylvania Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,278.\n(Not to \"be reported in full.)\nAppeal to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry C. Moran, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1916.\nRehearing denied March 21, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Alfred S. Greiner, plaintiff, against the Pennsylvania Company, defendant, on a claim for damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile resulting from a collision with defendant\u2019s train at a public crossing in Indiana. From a judgment for $900 in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nPlaintiff charged negligence generally in operating the train, and specifically in disregarding his signal of danger and in maintaining a crossing of inadequate width.\nPlaintiff at night was unable to move his automobile from defendant\u2019s tracks and detaching the tail light therefrom, which gave a dim red light, he ran westward along defendant\u2019s tracks towards the train which approached from the west at an estimated speed of from 50 to 60 miles an hour. The distance he had run when he waved the lamp at the train was disputed. The engineer, who could stop his train within about 1,000 feet, applied his emergency brakes and stopped the train with its rear end at a point estimated at from 50 to 250 feet beyond the crossing where it had struck plaintiff\u2019s automobile.\nAbout 400 feet west of the crossing was a semaphore showing a white signal for a clear way, and pursuant to the company\u2019s rules the engine crew called the signal \u201cwhite\u201d to each other when they saw it. About 800 or 900 feet west of the crossing was a whistling post where the whistle was given for the crossing. Both the engineer and fireman testified that they did not see plaintiff until just before he stepped from in front of the train, which plaintiff said was when it was 30 feet away; that they were then about 500 or 600 feet from the crossing. Plaintiff estimated the distance at 1,200 feet, and one of his witnesses judged it was \u201cin the neighborhood of 1,000 feet or a quarter of a mile,\u201d and the other at \u201cabout a quarter of a mile\u201d but admitted that he \u201cdid not see how anybody could judge the distance at night to an accurate point.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobh.es and garages, \u00a7 3 \u2014when evidence of driver of automobile insufficient to establish distance from automobile to point where train was signaled. In an action for damages for injury caused by defendant\u2019s train to plaintiff\u2019s automobile, where plaintiff alleges that defendant disregarded his stop signal and the burden rested upon him of fixing the distance he had advanced along defendant\u2019s tracks when he gave such stop signal, and his estimate was formed under circumstances of excitement and concern, in the nighttime, with no fixed' objects at definite distances for comparison, and this estimate was contradicted by equally credible evidence given by persons shown to be more familiar with the location and whose daily occupation required them to exercise knowledge' of distances, held that plaintiff\u2019s estimate did not afford a sound basis upon which to base a verdict.\n2. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3*\u2014when evidence insufficient to establish negligence in failing to stop train so as to prevent collision with automobile. In an action for damages for injury to plaintiff\u2019s automobile caused by defendant\u2019s train at a crossing, where it appeared that the train could be stopped at a distance of about 1,000 feet; that it was dark at time of the accident; that the speed of the train was about a mile a minute; that the railroad signal in the vicinity was set for a clear way; that plaintiff\u2019s lamp with which he endeavored to signal gave dim light which might have been passed unobserved while defendant\u2019s servants were watching for block signals; that distances in question are mere estimates, a slight variation from which' would change the entire ground for a charge of negligence, provided brakes were promptly applied, held that a finding of negligence of defendant was contrary to the weight of the evidence.\nLoesch, Scofield & Loesch, for appellant.\nFrederic R. De Young and Wiley W. Mills, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 286
}