Harovsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Harovsky v. Chicago City Railway Co.

205 Ill. App. 570, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1233

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 28, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,850

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 570 (Harovsky 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

Harovsky v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 570, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1233 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Street railroads, § 131*—When evidence sufficient to show negligence in causing express wagon to strike pedestrian. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for injuries to plaintiff, received while walking on a sidewalk, through a collision between a street car and an express wagon which caused the wagon to strike plaintiff, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that the street railway company was guilty of negligence. 2. Street railroads, § 149*—when refusal of requested instruction in action for injuries to pedestrian is proper. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for injuries to plaintiff who, while walking on the sidewalk, was struck by an express wagon which had collided with a street car, it is not error to refuse an instruction which is predicated upon a situation in which a plaintiff finds himself suddenly placed in a position of danger and which undertakes to state a defendant’s duty in such a situation. 3. Appeal and error, § 1565*—when modification of requested instruction not reversible error. It is not reversible error for the court to make an addition to a requested instruction which renders it less apt to mislead the jury.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Street railroads, § 131*—When evidence sufficient to show negligence in causing express wagon to strike pedestrian. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for injuries to plaintiff, received while walking on a sidewalk, through a collision between a street car and an express wagon which caused the wagon to strike plaintiff, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that the street railway company was guilty of negligence. 2. Street railroads, § 149*—when refusal of requested instruction in action for injuries to pedestrian is proper. In an action against a street railway company and an express company to recover for injuries to plaintiff who, while walking on the sidewalk, was struck by an express wagon which had collided with a street car, it is not error to refuse an instruction which is predicated upon a situation in which a plaintiff finds himself suddenly placed in a position of danger and which undertakes to state a defendant’s duty in such a situation. 3. Appeal and error, § 1565*—when modification of requested instruction not reversible error. It is not reversible error for the court to make an addition to a requested instruction which renders it less apt to mislead the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 570, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harovsky-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1917.