Gruenberger v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Gruenberger v. Chicago City Railway Co.

189 Ill. App. 433, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 373

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 10, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,951

StatusPublished

This text of 189 Ill. App. 433 (Gruenberger v. Chicago City Railway 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

Gruenberger v. Chicago City Railway Co., 189 Ill. App. 433, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 373 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and error, § 1106*—what constitutes an appealable interest. Statement of counsel held not to be sufficient to justify a dismissal on the ground that the codefendant has no interest in the appeal. 2. Carriers, § 482*—when instruction erroneous. In an action for personal injuries sustained while a passenger on a street car operated by one company, through a collision with a car operated by a codefendant company, against the latter of which the jury alone returned a verdict, an instruction tending to give the jury the impression that proof by the plaintiff of the fact of the collision, and that he was guilty of no negligence, made out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the codefendant company, which it was bound to overcome by competent evidence showing that the accident happened without its negligence, is held erroneous as to such codefendant. 3. Carriers, § 476*—what does not constitute an admission of negligence. A statement of counsel that one of two companies operating street cars assumed the defense of the case because its passenger was injured through a collision, and that he desired the jury to fix the liability, if any, as to which company, does not amount to an admission of negligence.

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

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and error, § 1106*—what constitutes an appealable interest. Statement of counsel held not to be sufficient to justify a dismissal on the ground that the codefendant has no interest in the appeal. 2. Carriers, § 482*—when instruction erroneous. In an action for personal injuries sustained while a passenger on a street car operated by one company, through a collision with a car operated by a codefendant company, against the latter of which the jury alone returned a verdict, an instruction tending to give the jury the impression that proof by the plaintiff of the fact of the collision, and that he was guilty of no negligence, made out a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the codefendant company, which it was bound to overcome by competent evidence showing that the accident happened without its negligence, is held erroneous as to such codefendant. 3. Carriers, § 476*—what does not constitute an admission of negligence. A statement of counsel that one of two companies operating street cars assumed the defense of the case because its passenger was injured through a collision, and that he desired the jury to fix the liability, if any, as to which company, does not amount to an admission of negligence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 433, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gruenberger-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1914.