Welch v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Welch v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

191 Ill. App. 43

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 31, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,977

StatusPublished

This text of 191 Ill. App. 43 (Welch v. Chicago & Alton Railroad) 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

Welch v. Chicago & Alton Railroad, 191 Ill. App. 43 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Master and servant, § 766*—when refusal to direct verdict for defendant proper. In an action against a railroad company for injuries sustained by plaintiff alleged to have been caused by a pile of cinders in the track, over which he stumbled when he went between moving cars to disconnect the air hose in order to stop the train for the purpose of avoiding a collision, refusal of court to direct a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiff was charged with notice of the pile of cinders and that he assumed the risk, held not error, where there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had not worked at the particular place in question for many months and that he had no knowledge of the pile of cinders, and it also appearing that a rule of the company had been posted in the form of a bulletin at various places on the line forbidding the dumping of cinders on tracks at the place in question.

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

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Master and servant, § 766*—when refusal to direct verdict for defendant proper. In an action against a railroad company for injuries sustained by plaintiff alleged to have been caused by a pile of cinders in the track, over which he stumbled when he went between moving cars to disconnect the air hose in order to stop the train for the purpose of avoiding a collision, refusal of court to direct a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiff was charged with notice of the pile of cinders and that he assumed the risk, held not error, where there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had not worked at the particular place in question for many months and that he had no knowledge of the pile of cinders, and it also appearing that a rule of the company had been posted in the form of a bulletin at various places on the line forbidding the dumping of cinders on tracks at the place in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 Ill. App. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-chicago-alton-railroad-illappct-1914.