Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 July 1909 — REED JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINED. [ARTICLE]

REED JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINED.

Appellate Court Affirms $5,000 Verdict us White G. C. CASE STARTED HERE IN 1903, , -- r* And Grew Out Of the Killing of John Reed, An Aged Citizen of Remington, In 1002 By a Pan-Handle Freight Train—Has Been In Appelate Court Twice—The Casey Girls, Grand-daughters of Decedent, Will Now Get tlie Amount. The decision of the White Circuit Court in the case of W. J. Reed, administrator, vs. the Panhandle railroad, for damages in the killing of John .Reed at Remington about 1902, was affirmed by the Appellate court Thursday, and Nora and Ella Casey, the two grand-daughters of the decedent, will get the $5,000 awarded them, less their court costs, etc. This case grew cut of the killing of John Reed, an aged resident of Remington, at the Ohio street crossing of defendant's railroad, from the alleged negligent construction of the planking in , said crossing, by which Mr. Reed is alleged to have caught his foot in walking over same, and before, he could get out of the way a freight car struck and killed him. The two Casey girls lived with the old gentleman, who provided a home for them, their lather and mother both being dead, and the killing of their grandfather threw them out of home. The girls later lived in Rensselaer for a few years, and one of them recently went insane while attending a nurse’s school in Chicago, from whict( she would have soon graduated, and she is now in an asylum, hopelessly insane, it is said. Suit was brought by Wm. J. Reed, administrator of his father’s estate and guardian of the girls, to recover damages, and in October, 1903, a judgment for $2,500 was given plaintiff by a jury in the Jasper Circuit Court. Defendant asked for new trial, which was denied, and it was then appealed to the appellate court and the case was sent back for a new trial on some technical error. Defendant took a change of venue then and the case was sent to the White circuit court where a judgment for $5,000, double the amount given here, was returned against the railroad. An appeal was again taken, with the above result. In affirming the decision the court held; (1) Where the victim of the negligence of a railroad had four sons, grown, married and with independent means, to whom he had conveyed land subject to his life estate, and three orphan daughters of his deceased daughter, who lived with and w-,ere supported and. educated by their said grandfather, the three girls were "next of kin” on whose behalf an administrator could recover damages for his death, although it was admitted that the sons sustained actual pecuniary loss by their grandfather's death. (2) Where the negligent violation by defendant of a legal duty causing an injury to plaintiff is shown by the facts alleged it is not essential that the complaint shall expressly characterize defendant’s acts as negligently done. (3) The violation of the statutory duty of a railroad to grade and plank its track at a highway crossing so as to make it reasonably safe for persons to cross without danger of getting their feet fast between the rails is negligence