Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 March 1888 — The Warren Wright Case Decided. [ARTICLE]

The Warren Wright Case Decided.

Most qf onr readers will remember the case of Brakeman Warren Wright against the I+, N. A. & G. Ry. Co.. tried in this county in the fall ot 1883. Wright was nearly killed while acting as to freight brukomaii,' by his head striking against an over-head bridge, over the above road, ntt Pdtpamville, near;:' Green castle. At the trial Wright was given slQt 000, the largest verdict over awarded by a Jasper county jury. The jury brought in their v&rdict, Nov. 23,1883. Jud gmeut w#s entered up by Judge Ward, March 26, 1884. The railroad took an appeal to the {Supreme Court, and final decision was not reached until last Friday. The judgment has been drawing 6 per cent, interest from the date judgment was rendered by the jury, so that the amount the railroad must pay Wright is $12,600. The decision of the Supreme Court was in favor of Wright, The following is the abstract of the decision: L. N. A. & C. Ry, Co. vs. Warren Wright. Jaspei G-C. Affirmed Zol lars, J.--Action by a bmkeman against a railroad company for personal injuries. Appellee maintained an ever head bridge upon a highway crossing its track. From the top of the rails to the bridge it was over fifteen feet. The box freight cars wore eleven feet high. The only way appellee could pass under the bridge in safety was to sit down or stoop, and he could do this aud apply the brakes. There wore no danger signals. Appellant knew of the dangerous place. Although appellee had passed under the bridge several times, he had no knowledge and was not notified of its dangerous character. The night on which he was injured was rainy and foggy, and the train passed under the bridge when the engineer signalled tor brakes, and the train backed up towards a station north of the. bridge. The appellee could not have seen the bridge had he looked, but he had his face in the opposite direction. He was struck in the back of the head. Suit as above. Hold, that the company had not used reasonable care in providing lor tlie safety of the brakeman. The fact that other railways had bridges too low for brakemen standing Or walking upon ordinary cars was not competent evidence.