{ "id": 5148975, "name": "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Frank Staff, Administrator", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Staff", "decision_date": "1892-12-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "499", "last_page": "501", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "46 Ill. App. 499" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "46 Ill. App. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5147818 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/46/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2877621 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0172-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 296, "char_count": 3973, "ocr_confidence": 0.45, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.6024019160962666 }, "sha256": "b9bd4cb1d41da89c81c7a66ba908c7d6d9d6d3ce707348f8f1ed1ff01af740ee", "simhash": "1:af25ebd0148c45c6", "word_count": 678 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:05.291643+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Frank Staff, Administrator." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman.\nThe finding of the coroner\u2019s jury, introduced in evidence, that the railroad company is responsible, etc., can not hav.e failed to be highly prejudicial to the defendant.\nThat the conclusions of a tribunal in a matter wherein a party had no opportunity either to influence its determination, or to have prevented his adversary from doing so, ought not to be adduced as evidence against him, seems too clear for discussion.\nThe first maxim in the administration of the law is aAudi alterampa/rtem\u201d or, as expressed in Broom\u2019s Legal Maxims, \u201cHo man should be condemned unheard.\u201d\nTo permit the conclusions of a coroner\u2019s jury, imputing negligence and casting the blame for the death of an individual upon a party who was in no wise, save as one of the human beings of the world, a party to its proceedings, and had neither voice in the selection of the triers nor opportunity to place before them aught that might tend to show his own innocence, is to condemn one unheard, and to violate the most fundamental of all principles applicable to proceedings in courts of justice.\n\"We do not understand that our Supreme Court have authorized the reception in evidence of such verdicts as this, and we look upon the case of P. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McGrath, 115 Ill. 172, as containing an intimation that they are not to be admitted. What is said in Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 46 Ill. App. 506, as to the admissibility of the verdicts of coroners\u2019 juries, is applicable to this case.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nHmersed mid remcmded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Edwin Walker, for appellant.", "Messrs. Richolson, Matson & Pease, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Frank Staff, Administrator.\nRailroads \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Failure to Signal\u2014Crossings\u2014Excessive Speed\u2014Ordinance\u2014Finding of Coroner\u2019s Jury.\nThe verdict of a coroner\u2019s jury in a personal injury case, death ensuing, imputing negligence to the defendant, can not be received in evidence against him. in an action for the recovery of damages for such death.\n[Opinion filed December 14, 1892.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action to recover damages arising from the death of one George Staff, a minor, who was struck and killed by a train belonging to appellant, at the intersection of Horth Halsted and Division streets, in the city of Chicago, in Eovember, 189Q.\nAmong the acts of negligence charged, were that the defendant negligently failed to give due and timely warning, by means of whistles and bells, of the approach of the trains; that the defendant negligently ran its trains at a rate of speed prohibited by the ordinances of the city of Chicago; that the defendant\u2019s train was running at an excessive rate of speed, to wit, twenty-five miles an hour.\nAt the trial the plaintiff was permitted to introduce, over the objection of the defendant, the finding of the jury summoned by the coroner to inquire into the cause of the death of the said George Staff. This finding, among other things contained the following: \u201c And we, the jury, find that the railroad company is responsible, and that the train was running at a fast rate of speed, and that the engineer did not blow his whistle until after the deceased was struck.\u201d\nThe deceased was fourteen years old at the time he was killed.\nThe defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:\n\u201c The court further instructs you that the verdict of the coroner\u2019s jury is not to be considered as evidence that the deceased was, at the time of the injury, in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence as charged in the declaration.\u201d\nAnd also: \u201c The dourt further instructs the jury that tlie finding of the coroner\u2019s jury or inquest is not to be considered by you as evidence that the defendant was guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration.\u201d\nThese instructions the court refused to give.\nMr. Edwin Walker, for appellant.\nMessrs. Richolson, Matson & Pease, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0499-01", "first_page_order": 497, "last_page_order": 499 }