{ "id": 5184991, "name": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Wm. H. Sanders", "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central Railroad v. Sanders", "decision_date": "1896-09-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "439", "last_page": "442", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 Ill. App. 439" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "132 Ill. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5419093 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/132/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 424991 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2854862 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/109/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5235507 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 Ill. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 839764 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/155/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5310691 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/71/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 N. E. Rep. 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2887280 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/116/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 837642 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/154/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2752141 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" }, { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/91/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5232649 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/59/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. App. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5085739 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/58/0117-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 474, "char_count": 6974, "ocr_confidence": 0.548, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.107806369698931e-07, "percentile": 0.5699533061580038 }, "sha256": "6f65a53a2e9e710f969d725b10033e04abea9ca19c29a30b83aac6460ec0c80f", "simhash": "1:608e48cc541d34d4", "word_count": 1235 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Wm. H. Sanders." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Scofield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nWhen this case was before us in 1894 we said that the evidence was conflicting as to whether or not appellant was guilty of negligence, and also as to whether or not appellee was in the exercise of ordinary care when he was injured. 58 Ill. App. 117. The evidence contained in the present record is not materially different from that contained in the former record. We think now, as we thought then, that the case is a close one in every particular, requiring the exercise of special care in instructing the jury. But we are also of the opinion that the judgment should not be reversed on the ground that it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nThe court gave but one instruction at the request of appellee, and that instruction is as follows : \u201c The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence that the defendant is1 guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration, and that the plaintiff was injured as in the declaration alleged, then you should find for the plaintiff. And in determining the amount of plaintiff\u2019s damages, if any has been shown by the evidence, you may take into consideration, as shown by the evidence, his age and earning ability, the character, extent and permanency of his disabilities, the pain and loss of time, if any, he has suffered, his personal disfigurement, and all other facts and circumstances as shown by the evidence as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff\u2019s injuries, and render a verdict for him in such an amount as you may believe from the evidence will compensate him for his said injuries.\u201d\nThe criticism of this instruction is that it omits the element of ordinary care on the part of appellee. Counsel for appellant convert the instruction into two instructions, by placing a period at the end of the clause, \u201c then you should find for the plaintiff.\u201d But this division of the instruction is unjustifiable. The same instruction, or one essentially like it, has been repeatedly approved by the Supreme Court, on the theory that it relates to rhe measure of damages and need not contain a statement of the elements of the plaintiff\u2019s case. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 59 Ill. 534; C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Dowd, 115 Id. 659; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marshall, 119 Id. 399.\nBesides, appellant set forth its reasons for a new trial specifically and in writing, alleging that the court erred in not giving a certain instruction presented by appellant, but nowhere asserting that the court erred in giving appellee\u2019s instruction. In such case the alleged error is waived. O., O. & F. R. V. R. R. Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 104; Consolidated Coal Co. of St. Louis v. Schaefer, 135 Id. 210; Hintz v. Graupner, 138 Id. 158. The case of I. C. R. R. Co. v. O'Keefe, 154 Ill. 508, is not in conflict with the other authorities, for the reason that there was no motion for a new trial at all in the O\u2019Keefe caserand the waiver arises only where the reasons for a new trial are specified, and the alleged error in the instructions is not included within the specification.\nThe court properly refused to instruct the jury to find in favor of appellant.\nThe refusal of the court to give appellant\u2019s seventh instruction was not error. The instruction was an abstract proposition of law and was calculated to mislead the jury. It might be appellant\u2019s duty to make and maintain cattle-guards as an abstract proposition; and yet it might be negligence to make or maintain this cattle-guard at this place under the particular circumstances of this case.\nWe have found no prejudicial error in the record. The judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Scofield" } ], "attorneys": [ "William II. Green, attorney for appellant; James Fen-tress, General Solicitor of I. C. R. R. Co., of counsel.", "Samuel L. Dwight and Frank F. Noleman, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Wm. H. Sanders.\n1. Instructions\u2014Statements of the Elements of the Plaintiff\u2019s Case, When Unnecessary.\u2014An instruction in an action for personal injuries which relates merely to the measure of damages, is not erroneous because it does not contain a statement of the elements of the plaintiffs case.\n2. Same\u2014Abstract Propositions of Law.\u2014It is not error to refuse to give an instruction which contains merely an abstract proposition of law.\n3. Same\u2014When Evidence Conflicting.\u2014Where the evidence is conflicting, special care should be exercised in instructing the jury.\n4. Appellate Court Practice\u2014What Errors Can Not be Assigned.\n\u2014Where the error relied upon relates to the giving of instructions by the trial court, it can not be considered by the Appellate Court, unless it is stated as a ground for a new trial in the court below.\nAction for Personal Injuries.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion County; the Hon. Benjamin R. Burroughs, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1806.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 5, 1896.\nWilliam II. Green, attorney for appellant; James Fen-tress, General Solicitor of I. C. R. R. Co., of counsel.\nSamuel L. Dwight and Frank F. Noleman, attorneys for appellee.\nThe law does not require of a brakeman that he should absolutely know all of the defects of construction, and all the obstructions that there may be along the line of the railroad, and that he should neglect the performance of his duties as a brakeman to be on the constant lookout for such obstructions and defects which may be dangerous. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 116 Ill. 206; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Wood (Ind.), 14 N. E. Rep. 584.\nThe master is bound to use reasonable care in providing safe machinery, appliances, surroundings, etc., and the servant, in the absence of notice that the machinery, surroundings, etc., are unsafe or defective, has a right to rely upon the discharge by the master of his duty in respect to these things. Penn. Coal Co. v. Kelly, 54 Ill. App. 626; Wharton on Neg., Sec. 211; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Fredericks, 71 Ill. 294; St. L., A. & T. R. R. Co. v. Holman, 155 Ill. 21; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 Ill. 272; Chicago B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Avery, 109 Ill. 314.\nA servant is justified in relying in some degree on the prudence and caution of the master, who will be presumed to put into his hands only safe appliances, and the master will be responsible for the consequences of a defect which he knew but the servant did not. Bishop, Eon-Contract Law, 678; Shear. & Redfield on Negligence, Sec. 31; 14 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 854, 855.\nIt is the duty of railroad companies to keep their road and works and all portions of the track in such repair and so watched and tended as to insure the safety of all who may lawfully be upon them, whether passengers, servants or others. They are bound to furnish a safe road and sufficient and safe machinery and cars. Chicago & K. W. R. R. Co. v. Swett, 45 Ill. 197; Cooley on Torts, 2d Ed. 648.\nA man whose attention is constantly directed to moving cars and their coupling and uncoupling, can not possibly give much attention to the tie's, switch bars, etc., over which he may from time to time have to pass. Chicago & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Hines, 132 Ill. 161." }, "file_name": "0439-01", "first_page_order": 435, "last_page_order": 438 }