TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sunnes v. Illinois Central Railroad

Nels Sunnes v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Sunnes v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 201 Ill. App. 378 (1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 21, 1916
Judges
Thompson
Citations
201 Ill. App. 378
Disposition
Reversed with finding of fact.
Headnotes
Abstract of tlie Decision. 1. Railroads, § 706*—burden of proof on plaintiff. In an action for injuries sustained by the driver of an automobile at a highway crossing aver a railroad track, held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety when approaching the crossing. 2. Railroads, § 738*—when evidence sufficient to show contributory negligence of driver of automobile. In an action for injuries sustained as the result of a collision with a railroad train at a public crossing, the plaintiff’s admission that he knew of the crossing and that he ran the automobile in which he was riding at from eighteen to twenty miles an hour over a very rough road up to within fifty feet of' the crossing, which was in plain view and of which he was aware, by the side of a hedge which he could not see over, although he testified that he looked until he was satisfied that no train was coming, held an admission of facts which showed a want of ordinary care amounting to gross negligence which would prevent a recovery. 3. Railroads, § 672*—what degree of care required of driver of automobile approaching partially obstructed track. In an action for injury sustained by an automobilist at a highway crossing over a railroad track, held that the fact that the plaintiff knew the track was partially obstructed by a hedge along the side of the highway required care on his part in proportion to the known danger.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. George W. Patton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thompson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Thompson delivered the opinion of the court. Abstract of tlie Decision. 1. Railroads, § 706 * —burden of proof on plaintiff. In an action for injuries sustained by the driver of an automobile at a highway crossing aver a railroad track, held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety when approaching the crossing. 2. Railroads, § 738*—when evidence sufficient to show contributory negligence of driver of automobile. In an action for injuries sustained as the result of a collision with a railroad train at a public crossing, the plaintiff’s admission that he knew of the crossing and that he ran the automobile in which he was riding at from eighteen to twenty miles an hour over a very rough road up to within fifty feet of' the crossing, which was in plain view and of which he was aware, by the side of a hedge which he could not see over, although he testified that he looked until he was satisfied that no train was coming, held an admission of facts which showed a want of ordinary care amounting to gross negligence which would prevent a recovery. 3. Railroads, § 672*—what degree of care required of driver of automobile approaching partially obstructed track. In an action for injury sustained by an automobilist at a highway crossing over a railroad track, held that the fact that the plaintiff knew the track was partially obstructed by a hedge along the side of the highway required care on his part in proportion to the known danger.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 11933: 11940: 11941: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burns v. Chicago & Alton Railroad223 Ill. App. 439 (1921)
  2. Wolf v. New York, Chigago & St. Louis Railroad148 S.W.2d 1032 (Mo. 1941)
  3. Nice v. Illinois Central Railroad25 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)
  4. Sheehan v. Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad269 Ill. App. 477 (1933)

Most recent

  1. Wolf v. New York, Chigago & St. Louis Railroad148 S.W.2d 1032 (Mo. 1941)
  2. Nice v. Illinois Central Railroad25 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)
  3. Sheehan v. Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad269 Ill. App. 477 (1933)
  4. Burns v. Chicago & Alton Railroad223 Ill. App. 439 (1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list