{
  "id": 2712215,
  "name": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Emma J. Keen, Admx.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central Railroad v. Keen",
  "decision_date": "1874-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "512",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. 512"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1831,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0795348026009615e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5621161697071915
    },
    "sha256": "db5ef60f199b8d6b404652127eab02388d07d5441b01572a528f8b1aee9a7590",
    "simhash": "1:8ca486737d63f777",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:15.201732+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Emma J. Keen, Admx."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis action was brought against the defendant for negligence in killing the plaintiff\u2019s intestate. He was a brakeman on a water train running between Centraba and Big Muddy, and was killed by the explosion of the boiler of the engine, on the 11th of Dec., 1871, a few miles south of Centraba. There is no question but that he and the engineer, Houck, who was also killed at the same time, were fellow-servants, in the same branch of employment, and if the defendant\u2019s death was caused by the carelessness of Houck, there can be no recovery. The case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Houck, Admr., ante, p, 285, presenting the question of Houclc\u2019s negligence on that occasion, was argued in connection with the present case, and we have considered them together. In that case we were of opinion, and so held, that the evidence clearly shows that the explosion resulted from Houck\u2019s negligence in running with more steam than the rules of the company allowed, and in not keeping his hoiler properly supplied with water.\nThe same view of the evidence must apply to the present case, and the result necessarily is, that the judgment must be reversed, and judgment will be given in behalf of appellant for costs in this court and in the court below.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. George W. Wall, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. W. W. O\u2019Brien, and Messrs. Casey & Dwight, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Emma J. Keen, Admx.\nNegligence\u2014of servant does not render master liable to fellow-servant in same branch of employment. A railroad company is not liable for an injury occasioned to a brakeman on one of its trains, caused by the carelessness of the engineer on the same train.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Am:os Watts, Judge, presiding.\nMr. George W. Wall, for the appellant.\nMr. W. W. O\u2019Brien, and Messrs. Casey & Dwight, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0512-01",
  "first_page_order": 512,
  "last_page_order": 513
}