Hoffman v. Chicago Railways Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hoffman v. Chicago Railways Co.

204 Ill. App. 414

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 20, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,026

StatusPublished

This text of 204 Ill. App. 414 (Hoffman 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

Hoffman v. Chicago Railways Co., 204 Ill. App. 414 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Damages, § 205*—when instruction referring to declaration is not reversibly erroneous. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where the declaration alleged such injuries would disable the plaintiff for the rest of her life from attending to her affairs and business, but no attempt was made to establish a basis for damages except for suffering, and the plaintiff’s attending physician testified there was no permanent injury, held that there was no reversible error in giving an instruction as to estimating the amount of damages if the jury should find that the plaintiff had sustained damages “as charged in the declaration.” 3. Damages, § 129*—when verdict for personal injuries is not excessive. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where the plaintiff received a fracture of the neck of the right humerus, with, a union of the fragments of the bone at the point of fracture, and there was three years later, at the time of trial, some limitation of motion, held that a verdict for $1,500 damages was not excessive.

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

Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Damages, § 205*—when instruction referring to declaration is not reversibly erroneous. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where the declaration alleged such injuries would disable the plaintiff for the rest of her life from attending to her affairs and business, but no attempt was made to establish a basis for damages except for suffering, and the plaintiff’s attending physician testified there was no permanent injury, held that there was no reversible error in giving an instruction as to estimating the amount of damages if the jury should find that the plaintiff had sustained damages “as charged in the declaration.” 3. Damages, § 129*—when verdict for personal injuries is not excessive. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where the plaintiff received a fracture of the neck of the right humerus, with, a union of the fragments of the bone at the point of fracture, and there was three years later, at the time of trial, some limitation of motion, held that a verdict for $1,500 damages was not excessive.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 Ill. App. 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-chicago-railways-co-illappct-1917.