St. Louis, Vandalia & Terre Haute R. R. v. Bell
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- City of Pekin v. McMahon (Ill. 1895)
- Wolczek v. Public Service Co. (Ill. 1930)
- Gritton v. Illinois Traction, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1927)
- Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co. (Colo. 1925)
- Caillier v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. (La. Ct. App. 1921)
- Anderson v. Karstens (Ill. App. Ct. 1920)
- Taylor v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad (Iowa 1917)
- Prickett v. Pardridge (Ill. App. Ct. 1914)
- City of Shawnee v. Cheek (Okla. 1913)
- Capp v. City of St. Louis (Mo. 1913)
- Rost v. Parker Washington Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1913)
- Railroad v. Harvey (Ohio 1907)
- Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Klinkrath (Ill. App. Ct. 1906)
- Belt Railway Co. v. Charters (Ill. App. Ct. 1905)
- Perez v. American Railroad (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1905)
- Pérez v. American Railroad Co. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1905)
- York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co. (Idaho 1902)
- Edgington ex rel. Meyer v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. (Iowa 1902)
- Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. Beavers (Ga. 1901)
- Ryan v. Towar (Mich. 1901)
- City of Pekin v. McMahon (Ill. App. Ct. 1894)
- Western Railway of Alabama v. Mutch (Ala. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Robert Bell, a lad some nine years old, in company with other lads, wandered on a pleasant Sunday into the suburbs of the village of Highland, and there found other and larger boys, and embarked in the sport of turning and riding round upon a turn-table of the appellant, and, while so engaged, Robert Bell was seriously hurt.
This was an action brought to recover damages for that injury, upon the ground of negligence, or want of proper care on the part of the railroad company.
The structure was a skeleton turn-tahle, not covered with plank, and not protected by a wall except where the rails of the switch intersected it. The turn-table was not near any public street, nor in the place where the public were in the habit of passing. It was fastened with a latch, which prevented it from being turned by accident, but it was not locked, so as to render it impracticable for boys to open or withdraw the latch and move the table
The testimony is voluminous, and in some respects discordant, but there is no ground for serious dispute about the main facts. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was refused, and defendant excepted.
After a careful examination of the testimony, this court is of opinion that, in view of the isolated position in which the turn-table was located, the proofs fail to show that appellant was guilty of such want of care as could lawfully charge it with damages for this accident.
The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.