Giachas v. Cable Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Giachas v. Cable Co.

190 Ill. App. 285

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 27, 1914

DocketGen. No. 5,937

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Ill. App. 285 (Giachas v. Cable 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

Giachas v. Cable Co., 190 Ill. App. 285 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 7*—elements of compensation. Evidence as to pain and suffering of a petitioner for compensation for the loss of an arm, although it probably should have been excluded had it been a jury trial, held not prejudicial in a trial to the court. 5. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 8*—future earning capacity in arriving at award. In an action under a compensation act for loss of an arm, where the court refused to hear the testimony of one-armed men produced by defendant as to how they had prospered despite the disability, and heard testimony introduced by plaintiff, over objection, to the effect that the loss of an arm is a serious disadvantage in the business world in obtaining employment, held not to be erroneous in excluding the first, and if erroneous in admitting the second, it was of no consequence in influencing the court’s finding, as what a one-armed man may do is a matter of common knowledge.

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.

4. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 7*—elements of compensation. Evidence as to pain and suffering of a petitioner for compensation for the loss of an arm, although it probably should have been excluded had it been a jury trial, held not prejudicial in a trial to the court. 5. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 8*—future earning capacity in arriving at award. In an action under a compensation act for loss of an arm, where the court refused to hear the testimony of one-armed men produced by defendant as to how they had prospered despite the disability, and heard testimony introduced by plaintiff, over objection, to the effect that the loss of an arm is a serious disadvantage in the business world in obtaining employment, held not to be erroneous in excluding the first, and if erroneous in admitting the second, it was of no consequence in influencing the court’s finding, as what a one-armed man may do is a matter of common knowledge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giachas-v-cable-co-illappct-1914.