Joehnk v. Smith

160 Ill. App. 269, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 880
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided October 18, 1910·No. Gen. No. 5378·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the evening of January 9, 1908, near the village of Myrtle, in Ogle county, on the line of the Chicago Great Western Railway, Frederick Hans Otto, assistant train-master, started to go between two freight cars of a wrecked train while the wreck foreman was trying to have the string of cars coupled np by having them struck sharply by an engine. Otto was caught and crushed between the cars and was so severely injured that he died a few hours later. His administrator brought this suit to recover the loss to his next of kin by his death. The first count of the declaration charged that Otto was assistant train master, and that when ordered by defendants, it was his duty to go to any wreck and to care for and dispose of damaged freight and wounded live stock; that this wreck occurred at Myrtle, and the receivers ordered him to go to the wreck and care for the merchandise and live stock, and that he obeyed said orders and, while caring for said merchandise and live stock, other servants of defendants, not fellow servants of Otto, were placing derailed cars back upon the rails and there was an opening of three feet between two of said cars, which defendants had left for Otto to use as a passage in going back and forth across the track in caring for and disposing of said live stock and merchandise lying along both sides of the track; that while he was in the discharge of his duty as assistant train master in the night time and crossing the track through said passageway to attend to the live stock on the opposite side of the track, and exercising all due care for his own safety, defendants’ servants negligently caused an engine to run against the end of one of said cars with such force that thereby the passageway was closed and Otto was caught and killed; that defendants well knew that Otto was using said passageway at that time, and that it was their duty not to close it while he was using it without giving him warning by ringing the bell or sounding the whistle or warning him of the intention to close the passageway; and that no bell was rung or whistle sounded or warning given Otto of the danger to be caused by the closing of the passageway. A demurrer was sustained to the second count. The third count and an additional count were similar to the first count, except that they did not charge that defendants had left said passageway for the use of Otto. Defendants filed the general issue and a special plea. The latter alleged that Otto was not at and before the time of the accident in the performance of any duty or service for defendants and was not then in the employ of defendants as assistant trainmaster; that the opening between the cars where Otto was injured was not left by defendants for the passage of Otto back and forth across the track; and that Otto was upon the right of way and track while attempting to pass through said opening, without any right or authority from said defendants and not in obedience to any order or duty enjoined upon him by the defendants. Issue was joined on these pleas. Afterwards the first, third and additional counts were amended by striking out the words “for the purpose of attending to said merchandise and live stock on the opposite side of said track,” and equivalent words wherever they occurred in said counts. Plaintiff had a verdict and a judgment and defendants appealed.

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

Joehnk v. Smith, 160 Ill. App. 269, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 880 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

160 Ill. App. 269 (Joehnk v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.