Gnatek v. Chicago Railways Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Gnatek v. Chicago Railways Co.

182 Ill. App. 392

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 15, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,762

StatusPublished

This text of 182 Ill. App. 392 (Gnatek v. Chicago Railways 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

Gnatek v. Chicago Railways Co., 182 Ill. App. 392 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction on contributory negligence proper. Instruction that if plaintiff was injured while and because he was not in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, as an ordinary prudent and cautious person would exercise under the same circumstances, he could not recover, held proper. 3. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction does not ignore question of defendant’s negligence. An instruction that if the jury believes from the evidence that the sole cause of injury to plaintiff was his own negligence he cannot recover, held not erroneous because it ignores the question of defendant’s negligence. 4. Instructions, § 162*—words construed. Words “established his case” in an instruction, held not objectionable as not being equivalent to “establishing the issues essential to the maintenance of the action.”

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction on contributory negligence proper. Instruction that if plaintiff was injured while and because he was not in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, as an ordinary prudent and cautious person would exercise under the same circumstances, he could not recover, held proper. 3. Negligence, § 226*—when instruction does not ignore question of defendant’s negligence. An instruction that if the jury believes from the evidence that the sole cause of injury to plaintiff was his own negligence he cannot recover, held not erroneous because it ignores the question of defendant’s negligence. 4. Instructions, § 162*—words construed. Words “established his case” in an instruction, held not objectionable as not being equivalent to “establishing the issues essential to the maintenance of the action.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gnatek-v-chicago-railways-co-illappct-1913.