Devine v. Illinois Central Railroad

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Negligence, § 48*—what constitutes proximate cause. In an action for personal injuries, where either of two causes may produce a result and only one of them is shown to have been present, it may be concluded by the jury that the cause shown to have been present at the time the result was produced is responsible for it.</p> <p>2. Negligence, § 204*—propriety of verdict directed for defendant. Where plaintiff seeks to hold an equipment company liable for alleged negligence in placing “kindall frames” so close to a railroad track as to he likely to he struck by a passing car, and the evidence clearly established that the frames as placed afforded sufficient room for all properly loaded cars in good order to safely clear the frames, and no evidence tended to show that the Equipment Company was chargeable with notice or knowledge that the car in question which struck the frames was so improperly loaded or permitted to project outward that it was liable to strike the frames, which were placed in such manner as not to fall unless violently struck by a defective car or other violent means, held that a peremptory instruction to find the Equipment Company not guilty for the wrongful death of its watchman while walking near the pile and a passing car was properly given by the court.</p> <p>3. Railroads, § 695*—sufficiency of declaration to support proof of improper loading of car. Where a count attempts to charge a railroad company with negligence in having the car in question project outward, and the sufficiency of the charge is not challenged in the court below, an Appellate Court will hold it sufficient to support proof of negligence in permitting the car to so project outward and in operating the car in such condition.</p> <p>4. Railroads, § 740*—where question of negligence requires submission to jury. In an action for wrongful death from being injured by falling frames when struck by a passing freight car which was found to be tightly loaded between its projecting sides, and the nuts or heads upon the bolts by which the iron pockets were presumed to be securely fastened to the body of the car were found to be drawn into the wood on the inside of the sill, whereby the pockets were enlarged and the stakes spread outward, and it appeared that cars of like width in good order had been hauled upon the same track without striking the frames as they were placed at the time of the accident, held the court erroneously directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Railroad Company.</p> <p>5. Railroads, § 740*—questions for jury. Whether the sides of a freight car improperly project so as to strike a pile of frames alongside a railroad track-and whether a railroad company is chargeable with knowledge that its sides so project are questions requiring submission to the jury under the evidence.</p> <p>6. Railroads, § 516*—duty towards persons near defective car moved on track. Where the sides of a car improperly project prior to an accident, and the railroad company is chargeable with knowledge of such projection, the duty is imposed upon the railroad company to exercise reasonable care to see that the track upon which it moves the car is in a reasonably safe condition to permit such car to be moved thereon without injury to persons rightfully near such car.</p> <p>7. Railroads, § 740*—question of notice as to clear space for jury. The question whether a railroad company is charged with notice of the clear space between a pile of frames and its track is one for the jury.</p> <p>8. Railroads, § 762*—where question of contributory negligence requires submission to jury. In an action for the wrongful death of a watchman injured by frames falling when struck by a passing freight car, whether deceased was in the exercise of due care for his own safety is one of fact requiring submission to the jury.</p>