Chatelle v. Illinois Central Railroad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chatelle v. Illinois Central Railroad

210 Ill. App. 475

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 9, 1918

DocketGen. No. 6,519

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Ill. App. 475 (Chatelle v. Illinois Central Railroad) 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

Chatelle v. Illinois Central Railroad, 210 Ill. App. 475 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

7. Appeal and eebob, § 1544*—when plaintiff in negligence case cannot complain of error in instructions. A plaintiff in a negligence case cannot complain because of the submission of the case to the jury with instructions that plaintiff could not recover in the absence of proof of ordinary care, on the ground that the declaration charged wilful and wanton negligence as well as ordinary negligence on the part of defendant, where he did not undertake to submit the question of wilful or wanton negligence, but in two or three of his general instructions covering the case told the jury that they could not find for the plaintiff unless they believed he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

7. Appeal and eebob, § 1544*—when plaintiff in negligence case cannot complain of error in instructions. A plaintiff in a negligence case cannot complain because of the submission of the case to the jury with instructions that plaintiff could not recover in the absence of proof of ordinary care, on the ground that the declaration charged wilful and wanton negligence as well as ordinary negligence on the part of defendant, where he did not undertake to submit the question of wilful or wanton negligence, but in two or three of his general instructions covering the case told the jury that they could not find for the plaintiff unless they believed he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Ill. App. 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatelle-v-illinois-central-railroad-illappct-1918.