Seymour v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
This was an action by Mary A. Seymour for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. About ten o’clock in the forenoon of the 30th of August, 1870, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a passenger ticket from Chicago to Galesburg, and proceeded to the defendant’s train of cars.
Read the full summary
This was an action by Mary A. Seymour for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. About ten o’clock in the forenoon of the 30th of August, 1870, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a passenger ticket from Chicago to Galesburg, and proceeded to the defendant’s train of cars. She had her baggage cheeked for Galesburg, and passed up the steps of one of the Pullman palace cars, intending to pay the extra fare for the right to travel in it. But she found the door of that car locked, and thereupon she passed across the platform of that car and into the…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). Railway companies who are carriers of passengers are required to use all the means reasonably in their power to prevent accident. It is not necessary to charge them with liability, that they be guilty of great negligence. It is enough if the accident was caused solely by any negligence on their part, however slight, if by the exercise of the strictest care or precaution, reasonably within their power, the injury would not have been sustained. But the company will not be liable, although guilty of negligence, if the injury arose from the want of ordinary or proper care on the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Nicholson v. . the Erie Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Wilds v. . the Hudson River Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Galena & Chicago Union Railroad v. JacobsIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Chapman v. . New Haven Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Ernst v. . Hudson River Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Ohio & Mississippi R. W. Co. v. DickersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Alabama Great Southern R. R. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Clayton v. Enterprise Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Dahl v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.