Elder v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Elder v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

186 Ill. App. 199, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 848

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 4, 1914

DocketGen No. 19,285

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 Ill. App. 199 (Elder v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.) 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

Elder v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 186 Ill. App. 199, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 848 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Railroads, § 738*—when judgment for damages to automobile cannot be sustained. In an action against a railroad company for damages to plaintiff’s automobile by being struck by an engine at a street crossing, the evidence showed that servants of plaintiff attempted to drive the automobile over the crossing on a dark night without looking to see if a train was approaching and that there was nothing to prevent them from seeing the approaching locomotive with its headlight burning had they looked. Held that a judgment for plaintiff could not be sustained for the reason that plaintiff, through his agents, was guilty of contributory negligence. 2. Railroads, § 668*—when driver of automobile approaching railroad crossing guilty of contributory negligence. A person driving an automobile on a dark night upon a railroad track, where it is known that trains are frequently passing, without the slightest concern whether or not a train is approaching is guilty of contributory negligence barring a recovery.

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

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Railroads, § 738*—when judgment for damages to automobile cannot be sustained. In an action against a railroad company for damages to plaintiff’s automobile by being struck by an engine at a street crossing, the evidence showed that servants of plaintiff attempted to drive the automobile over the crossing on a dark night without looking to see if a train was approaching and that there was nothing to prevent them from seeing the approaching locomotive with its headlight burning had they looked. Held that a judgment for plaintiff could not be sustained for the reason that plaintiff, through his agents, was guilty of contributory negligence. 2. Railroads, § 668*—when driver of automobile approaching railroad crossing guilty of contributory negligence. A person driving an automobile on a dark night upon a railroad track, where it is known that trains are frequently passing, without the slightest concern whether or not a train is approaching is guilty of contributory negligence barring a recovery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 Ill. App. 199, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elder-v-pittsburgh-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railway-co-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack