Court Opinion

ID: 9743748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:42:09.934953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.241282
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP dissenting: It has been consistently held that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the exercise of ordinary care, and without affirmative evidence of such the injured party may not recover. (Overman v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 34 Ill.App.2d 30, 180 N.E.2d 213; Bachman v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 132 Ill.App.2d 277, 268 N.E.2d 42.) In the absence of evidence of this element of the case, there is contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Tucker v. New York C. & St. L. R.R. Co., 12 Ill.2d 532, 147 N.E.2d 376.) In Siebens v. Konicek, 108 Ill.App.2d 300, 247 N.E.2d 453, plaintiff contended that there was no evidence that he had failed to exercise due care. It was said that there was no presumption that relieved him of such burden of proof. The principal opinion notes the obstructions to view. It is stated that the duty to exercise care must be measured by the known hazards. (Tucker v. New York, C. & St. L. R.R. Co., 12 Ill.2d 532, 147 N.E.2d 376; Bachman v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 132 Ill.App.2d 277, 268 N.E.2d 42.) Here, the decedent had used the crossing substantially ten times a week for five years. It would appear that no hazard present would be unknown to him. All witnesses in the vicinity at the time and place bear'd the blowing of the train whistle, except one man who could not recall that whistling for the reason that he worked beside the crossings and he heard train whistles all day. Such witnesses as were at the scene just before the collision testified that the wigwag signal was functioning in a normal way. The evidence is that it was activated from a point 3300 feet south of the crossings. Photographs in evidence plainly show that the wigwag signal was clearly visible on the highway approach to the crossing. Photographic exhibits show a substantial view of the tracks on which the train approached from a point east of the east spin track which was east of the main track. This was not a high-speed thoroughfare and all of the evidence is that decedent drove slowly as he approached, but a witness observed that no stop lights showed as he went upon the crossing. A disinterested witness standing near the crossing testified that the decedent looked straight ahead as he drove on to the tracks. The engineer and fireman also testified that decedent did not look up or toward the engine until the rear wheels of his car were on the westerly track of the main line. Such affirmative, undisputed evidence of failure to look was considered significant in Harsha v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 131 Ill.App.2d 820, 269 N.E.2d 733. In Pedrick, 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504, plaintiffs evidence of the exercise of ordinary care was deemed “equivocal.” It was then determined that the trial court should have directed a verdict or entered judgment n.o.v. Here, there is no evidence the decedent had looked, and there is actual affirmative evidence that he did not exercise ordinary care. Upon such Pedrick should control.