{ "id": 5254406, "name": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. William H. Ranstead", "name_abbreviation": "West Chicago Street Railroad v. Ranstead", "decision_date": "1897-05-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "111", "last_page": "116", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "70 Ill. App. 111" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "38 Ill. App. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5471145 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "139 Ill. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "77 Md. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1788077 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/77/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 Ill. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "81 Me. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 Ia. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2324078 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/51/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Pa. St. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 539248 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/108/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Pac. R. 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "80 Cal. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 1947232 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/80/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Atl. R. 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 La. Ann. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 5234250, 5232758 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/23/0274-02", "/la-ann/23/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 La Ann. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y. Super. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 1654958 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-super-ct/40/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ill. App. 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2441654 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/47/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5374008 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/110/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2715116 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/72/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. App. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5128462 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/49/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Minn. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 751065 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/42/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y. Super. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 1684044 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-super-ct/53/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 U. S. 697", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3385260 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/95/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5022776 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/40/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ill. App. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4860084 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/12/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ohio St. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 906835 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/35/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N. Y. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2049866 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/45/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Bosw. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bosw.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "141 Pa. St. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 974823 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/141/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Pa. St. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 970506 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/132/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Me. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 652630 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/87/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N. Y. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2208672, 2208682 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/105/0655-02", "/ny/105/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Atl. R. 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "109 N. Y. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 560663 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/109/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 La. Ann. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 322653 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/33/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y. Sup. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 4631586 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-sup-ct/69/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5342696 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/87/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Cal. 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2275667 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/5/0461-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 600, "char_count": 8862, "ocr_confidence": 0.589, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.34652329151236233 }, "sha256": "2721038f9641b1312feb498b70a9c7cafa867c2603f0ca420d8ab4bd19cd9e23", "simhash": "1:e5575286181f2e80", "word_count": 1671 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. William H. Ranstead." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn the 28th day of February, 1894, the appellee, then in his fifty-fifth year, but with, so far as appears, mental and physical powers unimpaired by age or disease, left the hotel where he lodged between five and half past five o\u2019clock p. ii.' to go north across Madison street, for his supper. His route was over the west cross-walk of Dearborn street.\nIn the language of the clerk of the hotel, \u201che\u201d (the appellee) \u201c was sober enough to walk, and drunk enough to be a little noisy,\u201d which description of his happy condition is corroborated by the testimony of the proprietor of the hotel.\nWhen he reached the cross-walk, a street car of the appellant was standing on the track, and his own version of the accident, copying from the abstract, is as follows:\n\u201c The Madison street car, with reference to the west sidewalk of Dearborn street, was standing about ten feet west on Madison. As I stepped over the first rail, the car struck me and throwed me under the car and rolled me there about twenty feet\u2014ketched me as I was stepping over the first rail and was just going on the track. As I was stepping over the first rail, the south rail, with this foot first and was going with the other, it caught me in the hip and throwed me against another gentleman that was walking side of me.\u201d\nTo a man attentive to his surroundings, and in the exercise of ordinary care, no such accident could have happened. The home of the appellee had been in Chicago nearly all his life. He knew, or if he had given a thought to the matter, would have known, that the car was stopped only momentarily.\nThus far I have written my own opinion, but the majority of the court does not agree to the conclusion at which I arrive.\nIn the opinion of my colleagues, the question of care by the appellee was for the jury\u2014that in considering it, they might take into consideration the usual conduct of ordinarily prudent and careful persons in threading their way through the crowds, and crossing the streets thronged by the multitudes of the great bustling city.\nAlso, that other testimony presents the manner of the accident more favorably to the appellee than does his own. A policeman stationed at the crossing, testified that the car was about six feet west of the crossing, and that as the appellee \u201c stepped onto the track the car shoots forward, and Eanstead makes a plunge to get off the track, * * * and the car struck Eanstead and knocked him against another man,\u201d and Eanstead fell under the car.\nIt is in evidence that to cross Dearborn street, cars\u2014they are cable cars\u2014have to make the crossing by the momentum gained before reaching the cable by which another line of cable cars is run upon Dearborn street, at a right angle to the Madison line.\nWhat influence that necessity had upon the care required of the appellant not to injure pedestrians at the crossing\u2014 or rather, whether the appellant did in fact exercise such care\u2014was another question for the jury.\nParaphrasing the language in Eobinson v.'Pioche, 5 Cal. 461, a drunken man is as much entitled to the exercise of such care as a sober one, and much more in need of it.\nWe all agree that no error is in the record, if upon the evidence the verdict of the jury was justifiable.\nThe jury awarded ten thousand dollars. After a remittitur of one-fourth of the verdict\u2014probably as a condition of entering judgment for the appellee\u2014the court entered judgment for the other three-fourths.\nIt is the judgment of this court that those fractions should be exchanged, and that if within ten days after this opinion is filed, the appellee enter another remmittitur of five thousand dollars, the judgment be affirmed for twenty-five hundred dollars; otherwise that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded; in either event at the cost of the appellee.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Alexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; E. J. Mc-Ardle, of counsel.", "Case & Hogan and Munson T. Case, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. William H. Ranstead.\n1. Ordinary Care\u2014A Question for the Jury.\u2014Whether a person who was struck by a street car was exercising ordinary care is a question for the jury, and in considering it, they may take into consideration, the usual conduct of ordinarily prudent and careful persons in threading their way across streets thronged by the multitudes of a great city.\n2. Same\u2014Drunken Man Entitled to the Exercise of, for His Protection.\u2014A drunken man is as much entitled to the exercise of ordinary care for his safety as a sober one, and much more in need of it.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed if remittitur be entered, otherwise reversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 6, 1897.\nAlexander Sullivan, attorney for appellant; E. J. Mc-Ardle, of counsel.\nIn the highway the rights of the pedestrian and public are mutual, concurrent and reciprocal, but in the tracks the traveler\u2019s right is subordinate, the cars superior. Booth, St. Ry. Law, Sec. 303; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, Adm\u2019r, 87 Ill. 454; Baker v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 69 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 39 (62 Hun); Carson v. Fed. St. Ry. Co., 35 Cent. L. J. 145; Child v. N. O. & C. R. R. Co., 33 La. Ann. 154; Donnelly v. B. City R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 16; Ehrisman v. E. H. C. P. Ry. Co., 24 Atl. R. 596; Fleckenstein v. D. D. E. B. & B. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 655; Smith v. M. C. R. R. Co. 87 Me. 339; Thomas v. Citizens P. Ry. Co., 132 Pa. St. 504; Warner v. People\u2019s St. Ry. Co., 141 Pa. St. 615; Wilbrand v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 3 Bosw. 5 N. Y. Sup. 314.\nA person taking a more than ordinarily dangerous course must exercise vigilance proportioned to the danger. Beach, Contributory Negligence, Sec. 9, p. 22; Barker v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 191; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Olson, 12 Ill. App. 245; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Rielly, 40 Ill. App. 416; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697; Childs v. N. O. City R. R. Co., 33 La. Ann. 154; Gumb v. 23d St. Ry. Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 466; Miller v. St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 454; Mayor of N. Y. v. Bailey, 2 Denio. (N. Y.) 433.\nTaking place of danger is an assumption of all attending risks. Illinois C. R. R. Co. v. Beard, 49 Ill. App. 232; Illinois C. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 72 Ill. 222; Simmons v. T. H. & I. R. R. Co., 110 Ill. 340; Peoria v. Walker, 47 Ill. App. 182; Beach, Contrib. Neg., Sec. 12; Halpin v. 3d Ave. R. R. Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 175; Johnson v. Canal & C. Ry. Co., 27 La Ann. 53; Mercier v. N. O. & C. R. R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 274; Miller v. St. P. Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 454; Morris v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 42 N. E. R. 579; Rose v. Phila. R. R. Co., 12 Atl. R. 78; Smith v. M. C. R. R. Co., 87 Me. 339; Trousclair v. Pac. C. S. Co., 80 Cal. 521.\nThe gripman had a right to assume appellee would take precautions commensurate with the dangers naturally incident to the situation, or created by his own conduct. Bunyan v. Citizen\u2019s Ry. Co., 29 S. W. R. 842; Everett v. Los A. C. E. Ry. Co., 43 Pac. R. 207; Glazebrook v. W. End St. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 35 N. E. R. 553; Fenton v. 2d Ave. Rd. Co., 26 N. E. R. 967; Moore v. P., W. & B. R. R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 349; Poole v. N. Car. & C. R. Co., 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 340; Starry v. D. & S. W. R. Co., 51 Ia. 419.\nCollision on a railroad crossing with a traveler is presumptive evidence of his negligence. Smith v. M. C. R. R. Co., 87 Me. 339; Hooper v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 81 Me. 261.\nCase & Hogan and Munson T. Case, attorneys for appellee.\nA street railroad company has not the exclusive right to the use of the public streets, but only to the use of thorn jointly with the balance of the public, and therefore its servants must take notice of the number of travelers liable to be on the streets at street crossings, and must exercise the care demanded by the increased danger at such points. Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Jennings, 157 Ill. 278; Baltimore Traction Co. v. Wallace, 77 Md. 435.\nIn the State of Illinois the right of a traveler to use a street is not stibordinate to the right of a railroad company to use their cars thereon. Chicago West Division Ry. Co. v. Ingraham, 131 Ill. 661.\nThe gripman had no right to assume that the appellee would take unusual precautions; and it is improper for any court to say, as a matter of law, that the gripman might presume anything. Presumptions have nothing to do with the questions involved. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Slater, 139 Ill. 199; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Sanders, 154 Ill. 538.\nA collision on a railroad crossing with a traveler is not presumptive evidence of his negligence. Chicago, St. L. & P. R. R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 120 Ill. 593; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Hessons, 150 Ill. 546.\nThe questions of negligence of the appellant and care were properly submitted to the jury. Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Fisher, 38 Ill. App. 40." }, "file_name": "0111-01", "first_page_order": 111, "last_page_order": 116 }