Brand v. Osborne

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brand v. Osborne

184 Ill. App. 11, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 43

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 2, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,625

StatusPublished

This text of 184 Ill. App. 11 (Brand v. Osborne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brand v. Osborne, 184 Ill. App. 11, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 43 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Railroads, § 667*—when evidence shows failure to loots or listen. A person familiar with the situation and use of electric tracks in a city was killed hy a car at a crossing at night. The view of the track for from three hundred to four hundred feet was unobstructed by anything except a few trees from which the leaves had fallen, and when within fifty or sixty feet of the track a clear view could be had for over a thousand feet. The car was brightly lighted and had a powerful electric searchlight burning that could have been seen for a mile. Held, the deceased did not look or listen and was contributorily negligent.

Clark, J., dissenting.

4. Railboads, § 651*—effect of contributory negligence. A person crossing a railroad crossing not exercising due care and caution is negligent, and if such negligence contributes to his death by being struck by a train there can be no recovery.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Railroads, § 667*—when evidence shows failure to loots or listen. A person familiar with the situation and use of electric tracks in a city was killed hy a car at a crossing at night. The view of the track for from three hundred to four hundred feet was unobstructed by anything except a few trees from which the leaves had fallen, and when within fifty or sixty feet of the track a clear view could be had for over a thousand feet. The car was brightly lighted and had a powerful electric searchlight burning that could have been seen for a mile. Held, the deceased did not look or listen and was contributorily negligent.

Clark, J., dissenting.

4. Railboads, § 651*—effect of contributory negligence. A person crossing a railroad crossing not exercising due care and caution is negligent, and if such negligence contributes to his death by being struck by a train there can be no recovery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Ill. App. 11, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-osborne-illappct-1913.