{
  "id": 2609630,
  "name": "Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Company v. Henry B. Head",
  "name_abbreviation": "Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Co. v. Head",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2714,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.598,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.292152963828535e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4338915125939775
    },
    "sha256": "6675a8d6c8d48455f8eca6c80961087b6cecda87501494ffbc839a808c99b92f",
    "simhash": "1:73a1d442b81ab9f4",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Company v. Henry B. Head."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thornton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe testimony in this case is too uncertain and unsatisfactory to justify an affirmance of the judgment.\nOne witness only was cognizant of the circumstances attendant upon the killing, and we can not ascertain from his statements that any negligence is to be attached to the company.\nThis witness and appellee were at work upon a bridge across the railroad track when the latter, with knowledge of the approaching train, called to his little boy, eleven years of age, to lead the horse across the track. In doing so the horse becam\u00e9 frightened, escaped from the boy, got upon the track, and was killed by the train.\nThe witness further testified that the boy had crossed the track of the road and was taking the horse south when he was killed.\nWe are not informed whether the horse was on the right of way, when he broke loose, nor the distance between the approaching train and the place of crossing.\nFrom such proof we can not infer negligence against the company; but rather, very great negligence on the part of appellee.\nThe order to the boy, in view of the train, and, for aught that appears, so near to the crossing as to render it impracticable to check its impetus before reaching it, was extremely reckless.\nThe evidence does not show that the accident happened by reason of the neglect to fence the road; and the negligence of appellee exculpates the company from liability on account of such negligence.\nThe corporation is not chargeable by failure to ring the bell or sound the whistle. The crossing was a farm crossing, and at such place the law imposes no such duty.\nThe inhumanity and barbarism depicted by appellee\u2019s counsel on the part of appellant do not appear in the record.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thornton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Beyan & Cochean, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Bubns & Babnes, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Company v. Henry B. Head.\n1. Negligence\u2014contributory. The plaintiff, working upon a bridge across defendant\u2019s railroad track, with knowledge of \u00e1n approaching train, called to his little boy, eleven years old, to lead bis horse across the track. In doing so the horse, through fright, escaped and got upon the track and was killed by the train. The proof failed to show negligence in the company : Held, that a verdict against the railroad company for the value of the horse could not be sustained; that the plaintiff was guilty of great negligence on his part, and that the law did not require a railroad company to ring a bell at such a place, it being only a farm crossing.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford County; the Hon. S. L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Beyan & Cochean, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Bubns & Babnes, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 234
}