Devine v. Chicago Railways Co.

189 Ill. App. 435
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided November 10, 1914·No. Gen. No. 19,984·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Negligence, § 208*—when instruction erroneous as omitting element of due care. Where several instructions directed a verdict for the plaintiff if the jury found the facts as therein severally stated, but each instruction omitted entirely the element of the exercise of ordinary care by the deceased for his own safety, the instructions were erroneous and the error could not be cured by other instructions. 4. Instructions, § 119*—when instruction erroneous as not based on evidence. An instruction that submits it to the jury to find if a certain fact exists virtually tells them that there is evidence tending to prove such fact, and if there is no evidence tending to prove it the instruction is calculated to mislead the jury and is erroneous.

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

Devine v. Chicago Railways Co., 189 Ill. App. 435 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

189 Ill. App. 435 (Devine v. Chicago Railways Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seaburg v. Williams
148 N.E.2d 49 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)
Campbell v. . Laundry
130 S.E. 638 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Campbell v. Model Steam Laundry
190 N.C. 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)