Case Name: James Hartley v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1901-07-23
Citations: 96 Ill. App. 227
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Hartley v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
James Hartley v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
1. Fellow-Servants—Switching Crews.—Different switching crews of the same railroad company are fellow-servants, and the company is not liable for an injury to a member of one of the crews by reason of the negligence on the part of the other crew. (90 Ill. App. 284.)
Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Marcus Kavanagh, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed July 23, 1901.
James C. MoShane, attorney for plaintiff in error.
Lee & Hay, attorneys for defendant in error; William Brown, of counsel.

Opinion:
Opinion per Curiam.
The facts involved in this suit are sufficiently stated and may be seen in the opinion of this court reported, with the title reversed, in 90 Ill. App. 284. That case was an appeal by the present defendant in error from a judgment recovered by the then appellee in an action for personal injuries sustained by him while working for the railroad company as a member of a " switching crew." We then held that the " switching crew," of which Hartley was a member, and the other " switching crew," through whose fault he was injured, were fellow-servants, and that he was not entitled to sustain the recovery had in his favor in the court below. The judgment then appealed from by the railroad company was accordingly reversed and the cause remanded. Since then, the case has been again submitted in the Superior Court to a jury on the same record and upon exactly the same evidence, whereupon, in pursuance of a peremptory instruction given by the court to the jury, a verdict of not guilty was returned in favor of the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly. The identical questions are again before us that were considered in the appeal case, and our opinion must be the same. Our order, therefore, is that the judgment of the Superior Court be affirmed.