Christin v. Erwin

Appellate Court of Illinois

Christin v. Erwin

22 Ill. App. 534, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 389

DecidedMay 13, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ill. App. 534 (Christin v. Erwin) 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

Christin v. Erwin, 22 Ill. App. 534, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 389 (Ill. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee brought his action to recover for injuries received in consequence o'f a collision, at a street crossing, _ of the buggy in which appellee was riding and a heavy wagon driven by the servant of appellant.

The circumstances of the collision were related to the jury by three witnesses called by appellee, and by one called by appellant. The question of fact and the question of negligence were peculiarly for the determination of the jury, and the finding is binding here unless manifestly against the weight of evidence, or unless some error of law was committed" at the trial. The evidence in the record abundantly supports the inference that appellant’s driver was negligent, and that appellee and the driver of the vehicle in which he was riding at the time of the accident were in the exercise of ordinary care. It is urged that plaintiff’s instruction as to comparative negligence omits the requirement of ordinary care. If the criticism is just, “ that requirement was so prominently put forth as essential to recover in other instructions,” we think no prejudice resulted to the defendant. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 116 Ill. 206. The other instructions of the appellee are without fault, and the jury were fully, even elaborately instructed on behalf of appellant. We are unable to say that the damages are so large, that, considering all the circumstances, the case should be reversed on that ground. Our examination of the record discloses no error which will authorize a reversal, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellee brought his action to recover for injuries received in consequence o'f a collision, at a street crossing, _ of the buggy in which appellee was riding and a heavy wagon driven by the servant of appellant.

The circumstances of the collision were related to the jury by three witnesses called by appellee, and by one called by appellant. The question of fact and the question of negligence were peculiarly for the determination of the jury, and the finding is binding here unless manifestly against the weight of evidence, or unless some error of law was committed" at the trial. The evidence in the record abundantly supports the inference that appellant’s driver was negligent, and that appellee and the driver of the vehicle in which he was riding at the time of the accident were in the exercise of ordinary care. It is urged that plaintiff’s instruction as to comparative negligence omits the requirement of ordinary care. If the criticism is just, “ that requirement was so prominently put forth as essential to recover in other instructions,” we think no prejudice resulted to the defendant. C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 116 Ill. 206. The other instructions of the appellee are without fault, and the jury were fully, even elaborately instructed on behalf of appellant. We are unable to say that the damages are so large, that, considering all the circumstances, the case should be reversed on that ground. Our examination of the record discloses no error which will authorize a reversal, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ill. App. 534, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christin-v-erwin-illappct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack