, 1864-07-14
THE BARRON CASE.
responsibilities Of Railroad Companies In
Case Of Accident.

In Inc case OF Ihe Executor Of Wtttan T.. Barron
rs the Illinois Central Railroad Company, report
ed in the TRIBUNE Of Monday, In which the jury
gave verdict for the plaintiff for S3750, We men
TONED that many interesting points were raised.
Want oi space prevented our then giving the In
structIons OF Judge Davis to the jury, reviewing
and commenting upon the interesting features OF
The case. a. thsy are important we append them
Thty were as follows:
Gent'e.7en Of Me jury This gnit brought to
recover damages tor the death Of WflllaE Barron,
Who was killed On the sth Of January, 1851 be-
for hire on the ears OF the Illinois Central Rail
b 3 Hy;s1 he Common Law this action could not be
lA 1858 Statute was passed in this State giving
right Of action wherever death is caueed BY the
@ no, e. ensued The pay Injured woni% have % eesa en- ea
titled 10 sue. The act also provides. that the
Ton shall be brought By ths personal representa-.
as s. ot and .As sne essas
snd that the >uEy maY siye such damages as t9ey
ence to the pccuniaTy injuries resulting from such
dealh to the vile and next Of kin, mol exceeding
the cum Of sd,t0N.
By the defendant that the next Of kin beng his
father, brothers and efsters had no clsim on him
ior support Or services and the5eiofs there could
We cannot adopt this construction Of the law
hut charge you thai there can be recovery II the
ee 9 1n @e hin i'm Il as suppo1 wPo Th
act in clear and anmistakable terms.- ii the In
sae &c hsd lived, then i be de- his 1 1epresenta @ a.
tives can bring an action. Many indlviduals who
lore their lives by the faut of persons and
10 ns eEs q Il dspsnasa aoa oa
them t1s1n foF support We cannot SUPPOSE that the
&c aash
that right nugatofy in the second sectlon by de-
pttsing them q AZ damages. The policy Of the
cirrumapect in regard to the lives entrusted to
their care. They we're responsible at common
law, i, through their ta1t, broken limbs were the
To remedy this evil and provide continuing res
object or the law. We do not think It requisite to
be done. The attempt to DE-. 1t would substitute
the opinions OF witnesse. for the conclusions Of
The jury. The facts proved will enable the @ary to
decide on the proper measure OF responsibility.
Some cases are harder than others, aud the Inv In
tends that the Jury shall discriminate In different
cases. There is -, liked measure Of damages,
asa no artificial ans 5uas BY which The be
eenRa.sd. The jury ars net to take into consider:
wounded feelings OF surviving relatives, and no
! damages are to be given hy way Of punishment.
In this case the next Of kin arc the parties Mno
were interested IL the further aecumu?ations which
he MIGHT have aided to his estate and which might
hereafter descend TO them. -.. .
Of peenniary in3ury-to take into consideration I'll
the circumstances attending the death Of Batrnn
the relations between him and his next Of Kin: the
amount Of his properly; the chatacter Of his busi.
ness and the prospective increase in wealth likely
to aecrue to aman Of hte aye, with the business
sud means which he had. There Is possibility
in the chances Of business that Barron's estate!
might have decreased rather than Increased, aud
this possibility the jury may consider: The ju!y
aso have right TO take into confederation ths
his property descended IN another channel
And there may be other. circumstances which
might eject ths anss.ioa Ct peeuniary !ess Which let
which will occur to you. The intention Of ths
statute was to give compensation for the pecu
mary 1oss which The Ttdog e any pI The next 3
| the jury are to determine as men OF experience
and obsc=yation from the proof what that loss is
In order to Ssnss Der yssdct 70. tns Palat !;
hsSlHsE'l' lts 'h'' 'he defendant Sh0n'a nave 0ss0
The Illinois Central Railroad Company engaged
Chicago, and as common carrier was hound te
the most e1ac. care and diligence required for tht
safety Of passengers. The facts IN the case are
Sth Of January, 1852, Judge Barron was passeu
ger from Hyde Park to Chicago. The train wa:
| from seven to ten minutes behind time, ana tht
issn Central and 1ilinoia Central companies
the cars Of the former were permitted to use th.
track OF the litter, Is Tar as Caamet Proper tim'
|
the Michigan Central by these time tables. shou1t
hare passyd HJda pa1k a least thirty minutes !!
advance of the train Of ,he nlinois M Central RAJ i
. Ciudnnau Express train was behind time and co!
. ltded With the Illinois Central train at kenwood
and was the tmmediate.cnuEe OF the disaster.
IL argued that the Cincinnati train caused the dealt
Of Barron, and that therefore the Illinois CentTa
Is not liable: Tho jury may believe from the cy!
and that without its agency the calamity wou
Lot hare happened; jet 1t they also believe from
the evidence That Iii rnieeondact or negligence
those In ehsrge Of the Illinois Central train cog
tTibuted to the disaster then the defendant was +
fault: and The plaintid is entitled to recover. :.
! It is rot question which train WAS mostly il
fnu1t. hut whether the train Of the defendant va
in fault at all 1t ie for the jury to say from II
J evidence whether the employees OF the 1ll,noi
= Central road nsed the necessary degree Of car
:. and diligence In the management Of their train 0
that morning. Their train WIS beMhd time th
track wae slippery and It was known to them. tha
an express train was liable to come up At Al
minute Shonld they not hare indicated by fia'
gipg or IN some other way that they were usiu
1 inc foads Can the jury guy II this had been dor
that this accident would have occurred: II ~ u
1he accident, then the Illinols Central train vi
re you, gentlemen, that If Jou shall ind thai t
y aeath was caused hy the joint fault Of those vi
% had the management Of the Michigan Central AZ
be e7ioenes sae hs SSs
r. RaF FEuAuE On toe tUau VI lAe oeIt41a4I ~ "
~ the Of contract with 1t, and that the train "
70 uudef the sole MANAGEMENT ot the agents Of Il
ii Michigan Central Road atd that the death "
At caused entirely bs thelr fault then under the co
~ ceded facts OF this case the defendant would ct
1e be responsible. We understand the road on viii
iii the accident occurred belonged to the defendant
g. and by its charter vas under tte cole control
III caHJ passengers and property; and il 1t allow
or the 1ratne Of the Michigan Central to ruu over
u uAQcI tnt IAuaEentas VI tue ASeols " tne Nlct
se gan Central. it should be dore IN such a mann
rr not to interfere with the safety Of the passe
IA gers OF the defendant, and aB To Bnch passeugt
Ri the fault Of the Michtfan central ROAD In runul
n their train is the fallt Of the defendant.