Marks v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Marks v. Chicago City Railway Co.

202 Ill. App. 220, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 891

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 18, 1916

DocketGen. No. 22,247

StatusPublished

This text of 202 Ill. App. 220 (Marks 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

Marks v. Chicago City Railway Co., 202 Ill. App. 220, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 891 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Stbebt batlboads, § 133*—when negligence in operation is question for jury. It is a question for the jury whether a street railroad company is guilty of negligence in the operation of its car resulting in the striking of a person who is standing at the side of the wagon near the track with his back towards the approaching car and is engaged with another person in tying on the load, where it appears that the accident occurred near a street intersection, that the car was moving fast at the time such person was struck and that the day was clear; that there were no obstructions that in any way limited the power and opportunity of the motorman to see such person where he was engaged at his work about the wagon, and that no bell was rung or warning given by the motorman or other persons in charge of the car of its approach to such street intersection.

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

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Stbebt batlboads, § 133*—when negligence in operation is question for jury. It is a question for the jury whether a street railroad company is guilty of negligence in the operation of its car resulting in the striking of a person who is standing at the side of the wagon near the track with his back towards the approaching car and is engaged with another person in tying on the load, where it appears that the accident occurred near a street intersection, that the car was moving fast at the time such person was struck and that the day was clear; that there were no obstructions that in any way limited the power and opportunity of the motorman to see such person where he was engaged at his work about the wagon, and that no bell was rung or warning given by the motorman or other persons in charge of the car of its approach to such street intersection.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 Ill. App. 220, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1916.