Case ID: ill_67/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Breese", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Laura A. Dickson et al.
    
    Misjoinder of parties—no recovery can be had by husband and wife for personal injury to the latter. Under the legislation of this State relating to married women, the husband and wife can not sue for and recover damages for a personal injury to the latter, but she must sue alone.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fulton county; the Hon. Chauncey L. Higbee, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action on the case, by Laura A. Dickson and Uriah W. Dickson, her husband, against the appellant, for so sounding the whistle of a locomotive engine attached to a passenger train, nearing Prairie City, McDonough county, Illinois, that the horses driven by the plaintiffs, hitched to a buggy, became frightened and ran away, by means whereof, the plaintiff Laura A. Dickson received certain personal injuries. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $4000 damages. The defendant appealed.
    
      Mr. S. Corning Judd, for the appellant.
    Messrs. Shops & Gray, for the appellees.
   Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, and a recovery had, brought by husband and wife, for personal injury to the wife alone, caused by the negligence of appellant’s agents and servants.

This court has settled the doctrine, that, under the legislation of this State, a married woman, for personal injuries, must sue alone. C. B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 260; Hennies et al. v. Vogel and wife, 66 Ill. 401; and in regard to her personal rights growing out of her ownership of property, Emerson v. Clayton, 32 Ill. 493; Hayner et al. v. Smith et al. 63 Ill. 430. And a majority of this court went a step further, at the same time, in holding that the husband was not responsible for the torts of his wife. This case is clearly within the principle of these cases; the point is distinctly made by appellant, and it must be decided in the same way.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.