Case ID: ill_66/html/0321-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Rockford, Rock Island and St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Rinnah Wells.
    
      Bailboad—liability for torts of its contractors. Where the contractors of a railway company are guilty of trespasses upon the land of another, in constructing the road, the company will be liable for their acts; and if the injury is wanton or wilful the company may be required to respond in exemplary damages.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. George W. Pleasants, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action- of trespass quare clausum fregit, by the appellee against the appellant.
    The declaration charged, in substance, that the defendant, by its employees, engineers, servants' and agents, forcibly broke and entered plaintiff’s close, broke down, damaged and removed fences, trampled down and spoiled the grass and herbage, dug up and removed earth and soil, cut and destroyed the trees and saplings growing thereon, and constructed a heavy embankment across a part of said close, etc. The defendant pleaded the general issue and license. Verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1100.
    Mr. Charles M. Osborn, for the appellant.
    Mr. John T. Kenworthy, and Mr. Wat. H. Gest, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam:

Under the decision made and principles declared in Lesher v. The Wabash Nav. Co. 14 Ill. 85, Hinde v. Same, 15 ib. 72, and Chicago, St. Paul and Fond du Lac R. P. Co. v. McCarthy, 20 ib. 388, there is no doubt about the liability of the railway in this case for the acts of its contractors injurious to the premises of the plaintiff. If the injury was wanton or wilful the company might be required to respond in exemplary damages., as the court instructed the jury. In the case before us, however, the verdict does not seem too large, independently of exemplary damages. There is no ground for reversing the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.