Gibson v. Wasson Coal Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Gibson v. Wasson Coal Co.

190 Ill. App. 599

DecidedJuly 28, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Ill. App. 599 (Gibson v. Wasson Coal 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

Gibson v. Wasson Coal Co., 190 Ill. App. 599 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Mines and minerals, § 153*—when testimony of mine examiner inadmissible. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a mine, alleged to have been caused by failure of the mine examiner to mark the unsafe condition of the mine, where the mine examiner was asked the question: “Tell the jury now what condition you found that entry in as to being safe or otherwise,” held that an objection to the question was properly sustained for the reason that to permit the witness to give his opinion on such matter would improperly usurp the functions of the court and jury. 6. Negligence, § 250*—when modification of instruction harmless. A modification of an instruction on the question of proximate cause by striking out the word “direct” and inserting the word “proximate,” held not error, it also appearing that the party complaining had the benefit of the word “direct” in its other instructions given.

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

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

5. Mines and minerals, § 153*—when testimony of mine examiner inadmissible. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a mine, alleged to have been caused by failure of the mine examiner to mark the unsafe condition of the mine, where the mine examiner was asked the question: “Tell the jury now what condition you found that entry in as to being safe or otherwise,” held that an objection to the question was properly sustained for the reason that to permit the witness to give his opinion on such matter would improperly usurp the functions of the court and jury. 6. Negligence, § 250*—when modification of instruction harmless. A modification of an instruction on the question of proximate cause by striking out the word “direct” and inserting the word “proximate,” held not error, it also appearing that the party complaining had the benefit of the word “direct” in its other instructions given.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-wasson-coal-co-illappct-1914.