Teal v. St. Louis & Springfield Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Teal v. St. Louis & Springfield Railway Co.

185 Ill. App. 33, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 20

DecidedDecember 27, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Ill. App. 33 (Teal v. St. Louis & Springfield 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

Teal v. St. Louis & Springfield Railway Co., 185 Ill. App. 33, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 20 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Carriers, § 384*—when rule of nonliability for ordinary swaying of car inapplicable. The rule that a railroad company is not liable for injuries resulting from the swaying and lurching of a car, unless the swaying and lurching were unusual, is not applicable where the gravamen of the action is not laid as the swaying and lurching of the car. 3. Carriers, § 486*—when instruction allowing recovery for negligently starting car erroneous. In an action fot injuries caused by being thrown from platform of car by the starting thereof when plaintiff was unable to gain entrance to the car from the platform, an instruction allowing plaintiff to recover if the conductor “negligently caused the car to start forward” without the limitation “before she had reasonable opportunity to enter it,” held erroneous; but the giving of same when considered together with other instructions given, held not to have misled the jury.

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

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Carriers, § 384*—when rule of nonliability for ordinary swaying of car inapplicable. The rule that a railroad company is not liable for injuries resulting from the swaying and lurching of a car, unless the swaying and lurching were unusual, is not applicable where the gravamen of the action is not laid as the swaying and lurching of the car. 3. Carriers, § 486*—when instruction allowing recovery for negligently starting car erroneous. In an action fot injuries caused by being thrown from platform of car by the starting thereof when plaintiff was unable to gain entrance to the car from the platform, an instruction allowing plaintiff to recover if the conductor “negligently caused the car to start forward” without the limitation “before she had reasonable opportunity to enter it,” held erroneous; but the giving of same when considered together with other instructions given, held not to have misled the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 33, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teal-v-st-louis-springfield-railway-co-illappct-1913.