Gentlemen of the jury: The court instructs you as follows: The instructions given to you in this case are the instructions of the court and
25 the law of the case which must govern you.

The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff has alleged in his declaration that at the
50 time of the injury in question the deceased, Charles Meegan, was in the exercise of all due care and caution for his own safety. This
75 means, in law, that at the time in question he was in the exercise of such ordinary care for his own safety and protection as
100 a person of ordinary prudence and caution would exercise under like circumstances, and you are instructed that

Charge to the Jury 543

this allegation is essential and must be proved.125 And if the jury believes from the evidence in the case that the deceased did not exercise such ordinary care for his own safety at
150 the time of the injury in question, and that his failure, if any, to exercise such ordinary care contributed to the injury in question, then
175 you should find the defendant not guilty.

If the jury believe from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time the decedent was injured
200 he was in the exercise of ordinary care and caution for his own safety and that the accident in question occurred through the negligence, however
225 slight, of the defendant, then the jury should find in favor of the plaintiff.

The court instructs the jury that the mere relation of master
250 and servant implied no obligation on the part of the master to take any more care of the servant than the servant was bound to
275 take of himself; and where the dangers or risks of the employment or work are as well known to the servant as to the master
300 and are as open and apparent to the servant as to the master, then if the servant undertakes to perform the duties thereto attached and
325 if he knows during all of the time he is so employed that he is in danger of great bodily harm, he must be regarded
350 as voluntarily assuming all of the risks that may result from the same. And in this case, if the evidence shows that the deceased was
375 injured by reason of such dangers or risks incident to the work that he was doing at the time, your verdict should be "not guilty."400

The court instructs you that when a person enters the employment of another he is presumed to know the ordinary hazards and risks incident to
425 the service into which he enters, and such hazards and risks he is held in law to have voluntarily accepted and assumed.

The court instructs
450 the jury that when one

Charge to the Jury 544

person undertakes to do a work assigned to him by another by whom he is employed, he is bound to
475 use his eyes to see what is open and apparent, and if he neglects to do so and in consequence is injured, no recovery can
500 be had against the employer for such injuries.

The court instructs you that if the deceased at the time in question omitted to do for
525 his own safety anything which an ordinarily careful, prudent, and cautious man under like circumstances would have done, and if in consequence of such omission
550 the deceased was injured, then the plaintiff cannot recover and your verdict should be "not guilty."

You are instructed that ordinary care and prudence is
575 the exercise of that care which every person of common prudence bestows upon his affairs or concerns, and the prudence and vigilance which reason and
600 law require a person to exercise for his own safety must be proportionate to the danger and exercised with reference to the situation and position
625 which such person is about to take or in which such person finds himself.

If you believe from the evidence that the deceased at the
650 time he was injured had full knowledge of the character and condition of the appliances with which he was attempting to move the safe in
675 question, and of the dangers incident to the use of such appliances in their then condition, and if you believe that he was injured in
700 consequence of the danger incident to the use of said appliances in their then condition, of which he had full knowledge, your verdict should be
725 for the defendant.

The jury are instructed that while it is true that the rule of law is that a master must furnish to the
750 employee reasonably safe machinery and appliances with which to work, yet in this case, if you believe from the evidence that the

Charge to the Jury 545

appliances used by
775 the deceased, Charles Mee-gan, were in any respect unsafe, and if you further believe from the evidence that said Mee-gan at or before the time
800 he was using them knew such condition of such appliances, and that notwithstanding such knowledge he continued to use them, then the rule of law
825 above mentioned is not applicable, and you should bear this in mind in considering your verdict.

The court instructs the jury that an employer is
850 under no obligation to warn his employees of danger that is apparent to one of ordinary intelligence or which is ordinarily incident to his employment,875 and if you find from the evidence that the deceased was injured because of a danger of that kind, then your verdict should be, not
900 guilty.

The court instructs the jury that if the evidence shows that the injury received by the deceased was the result of a pure accident
925 without negligence on the part of the defendant, your verdict should be for the defendant.

If you believe from the evidence that any witness has
950 wilfully and knowingly sworn falsely to any material element in this case, then you have a right to reject the entire testimony of such witness 975 unless it is corroborated by other credible evidence or by facts and circumstances appearing in the case.

The question of the amount of damages is
1000 an entirely distinct and different question from the question of liability, and in determining the question of liability you should not permit the character of
1025 the injury or the amount of damages to influence you in any degree. If there is no liability on the part of the defendant you
1050 will not have occasion to consider at all the character and extent of the injuries.

Charge to the Jury 546

The court instructs you that the plaintiff is not entitled
1075 in any event to recover anything whatever for court costs, attorneys' fees or services, nor witness fees or administrator's services, fees or expenses, nor for
1100 the expenses of this suit, nor for funeral expenses, nor for any pecuniary or other losses sustained by the deceased himself. The plaintiff cannot in
1125 any event recover anything whatever for any pain or suffering of the deceased, nor for any mental pain or suffering of the next of kin.1150 In an action for damages resulting from the death of a husband by negligence the actual pecuniary loss, that is, money or financial loss, of
1175 the next of kin is the sole measure of damages.

The court instructs the jury that this is an action under the statute to recover
1200 damages to the next of kin of the deceased, and the court instructs the jury that under the statute the next of kin can recover,1225 even when the defendant is guilty, only such damages as are a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary interest, that is, the actual money
1250 loss resulting to the next of kin of said deceased person from such death; and even if you believe from the evidence under the instructions
1275 of the court that the verdict should be for the plaintiff, you can allow to the plaintiff only such damages as will compensate the next
1300 of kin for the pecuniary interest, that is, the financial or money loss if any, shown by the evidence as resulting to the next of
1325 kin from the death of said Charles Meegan.

Two forms of verdict are handed you. If you find for the plaintiff you will say "We,1350 the jury, find the issues in favor of the plaintiff and assess the plaintiff's damages at the sum of

------ dollars" ----- filling in the amount
1375 on which you agree. If you find in favor of the defendant the form of your verdict will be simply "We, the jury, find the
1400 defendant not guilty." (1403 words)

Charge to the Jury 547

State of Illinois, } SS Kane County, }

In the Superior Court of Kane County. MERCANTILE TRANSFER COMPANY. A Corporation, vs.

Henry Morris, Charles Granger,

GEORGE GORDON.25 et al.