Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-03-08
United States Supreme Court.

Recovery for Causing Death The
Right of Action Therefor-TO whom
Does it Inure 1.-THE Measure of Dam
age railroads = Their Duties and
Liabilities. ..frfsfl I'd
The Illinois Central Railroad Conapdns,
plaintiff in error, o. William BdrrOR.-The
Judgment in this action was rendered by
the Circuit Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, and comes here for examination
on writ of error. The defendant in error,
executor of William t. Barron, deceased,
brought his action against the plaintiff in.
error for damages occasioned by the death
of his testator, caused, as alleged, by the
carelessness and negligence of the COM
pany, in January, 1862 while deceased was
getting off a car i'm the neighborhood of
kenwood station, near Chicago. % ai.
The testator was bachelor, about thirty
five years of age, and owned an estate
worth from $4,000 to $4,000. The plain
tiff was his father, and he left brothers and
sisters, one of whom had formerly received
some assistance from him for her support.
The verdict was for the plaintiff $4,000,
and Judgment was entered thereon to re-
view, while the Company took out writ of
error to this Court, insisting that the Court
erred in instructing the jury and in re-
f1sing to instruct as asked by them in GER
tain particulars which will appear from
the argument.
1t is now contended that i'll order to re-
cover more than nominal damages it was
necessary to show that there were next of
kin in existence entitled to claim the in
demnity given by law, and that they had
sustained a pecuniary loss justifying the
claim. The intention of the act under
which the action was brought was to COM
pensate the widow and next of kin of the
person killed for the pecuniary injury to
them, occasioned by his death. If the
death caused them no pecuniary injury,
| the act gave them no damages, for the COM
| pensation for such injury was the measure
of damages. The act of New York for
| this purpose is quoted, it being similar to
the Illinois statute, and the decisions of
the Courts of that State under that law are
cited to maintain these propositions. In
this case there were no next of kin who
could properly be said to sustain any
| pecuniary loss by the testator's death;
none of his next of kin had any pecuniary
interest in his life. No one stood in
the relation to him that the mother does
to her child, and whose duty it would
| be to furnish it care and nurture. No one
| in the relation that the minor child sustains
toward its mother, who could receive the
| benefit of its services until it became of
age. The plaintiff in this case was not de-
pendent upon the deceased, as his SON
not entitled to his future earnings; nor
were his brothers and sisters. Indeed in
Steau OF pecunlary loss TO them, MS death
gave them an estate of great value, which
otherwise they could not receive, and
which they might never receive.
A Railroad Company is not warranter
of the lives of its passengers against the
negligence or willful acts wrongfully COM
mitted by another. Its duty is to provide
proper and safe vehicles to carry passen-
gers, and to run them with skill and with
out negligence. 1t is not one of the obli-
| nj n rra N
gers against an injury caused by the care
less driving of a horse or load against a
car, or one occasioned by the wrong OF
another in placing an obstruction on its
track. In this case the accident was occa-
stoned by the wrongful acts of another
Railroad Company, which was authorized
by law to run its trains over the same
| track. .-..4 ,..
The Company reply, combating these
propositions. -5l
VIM. Tracy for plaintiff in error; Mr.
Cook opposed. ... ..-...-.,-.-. .