Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.

205 Ill. App. 573

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 28, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,935

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 573 (Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borkowsky v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 573 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 188*—when evidence insufficient to show that impairment of vision was due to accident. In an action for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the starting of defendant’s car as plaintiff was alighting, evidence held insufficient to show that the impairment of vision complained of was due to the accident. 4. Appeal and error, § 1474*—lohen admission of conjecture and speculation of expert witness is reversible error. In an action for personal injuries, the admission of conjecture and speculation of a medical witness as to what might produce or cause the condition found by him in plaintiff, is reversible error. 5. Evidence, § 410*-—what opinion of medical witness may not be given. In an action for personal injuries, it is error to permit a medical witness to testify that plaintiff would eventually become blind, though how long thereafter he could not state, as such an opinion is merely speculative. 6. Evidence, § 368*-—when witness may not testify as to subjective conditions. In an action for personal injuries it is error to permit a witness to testify as to subjective conditions of plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 188*—when evidence insufficient to show that impairment of vision was due to accident. In an action for personal injuries alleged to have been received through the starting of defendant’s car as plaintiff was alighting, evidence held insufficient to show that the impairment of vision complained of was due to the accident. 4. Appeal and error, § 1474*—lohen admission of conjecture and speculation of expert witness is reversible error. In an action for personal injuries, the admission of conjecture and speculation of a medical witness as to what might produce or cause the condition found by him in plaintiff, is reversible error. 5. Evidence, § 410*-—what opinion of medical witness may not be given. In an action for personal injuries, it is error to permit a medical witness to testify that plaintiff would eventually become blind, though how long thereafter he could not state, as such an opinion is merely speculative. 6. Evidence, § 368*-—when witness may not testify as to subjective conditions. In an action for personal injuries it is error to permit a witness to testify as to subjective conditions of plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borkowsky-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1917.