Court Opinion

ID: 9521396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:04:09.41936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:43.538971
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. On this record the question of whether the plaintiff’s decedent exercised due care was clearly one of fact for the jury. In addition to the facts reviewed in the opinion of the appellate court, and in the majority opinion of this court, the testimony shows that there were chuck holes 5 to 6 inches deep in the westbound lane of traffic on the crossing, that the crossing was slippery with ice and that no salt or cinders had been spread on its surface. Kenneth J. Patton, a safety supervisor at U.S. Industrial Chemical’s plant at Tuscola, where plaintiff’s decedent was employed, testified that he made “sightings” at the scene and that the view to the south was obstructed by trees and buildings from a point approximately 300 feet east of the crossing to the east line of the right-of-way and that the view from the east line of the right-of-way was obstructed by a utility pole, a railroad signal box and a warehouse building. A State trooper testified that at a point 15 feet east of the spur track the warehouse building obscured his vision of a train coming from the south. A witness called by defendant testified that when traveling west “in order that you could see down the track to the south your front wheels would be approximately 6 inches beyond the east rail” (indicating the spur track). There was testimony that the light in the wigwag signal consisted of a 10-watt bulb, and a witness who saw it from a point 20 feet east of the spur track approximately one hour after the occurrence could see no light burning. The majority recognizes that when the view of the crossing is obstructed due care is to be determined by the finder of fact. (59 Ill.2d at 17.) The result reached by the majority is a clear violation of the rule enunciated in Pedrick (37 Ill.2d 494), and the judgments of the circuit and appellate courts should be affirmed.