McCurray v. Meadows Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

McCurray v. Meadows Manufacturing Co.

210 Ill. App. 508

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 9, 1918

DocketGen. No. 6,513

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Ill. App. 508 (McCurray v. Meadows Manufacturing 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

McCurray v. Meadows Manufacturing Co., 210 Ill. App. 508 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Workmen’s Compensation Aot, § 12*—when evidence that claimant has no education is admissible. On an appeal to the Circuit Court from the findings of the board of arbitrators and trial de novo before a jury, in proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, evidence that claimant has no education is admissible on the question of what limitations there are on claimant’s earning capacity after the accident and injury. 3. Evidence, § 410*—when physician may testify that later injury was caused by original injury. Where' there is no dispute as to the manner and cause of an injury, and no dispute that an injury has been sustained, it is competent for a physician to testify directly that a later malady was caused by the accident or original injury. 4. Appeal and error, § 1316*—when party cannot complain of any error in an instruction given for adverse party. A party cannot Complain of any error in an instruction given for the adverse party when it fails to set out its own instructions in the abstract, and it will be assumed that there may have been an instruction among those not set out which cured the error. 5. Workmen’s Compensation Act—when claimant not estopped to recover compensation by doctrine of election of remedies. Where an injured employee files a petition for the appointment of arbitrators under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and later commences an action on the case in the Circuit Court, claiming that the employer is liable to him under section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (J. & A. j[ 5451), because of an intentional omission to comply with statutory safety regulations, but, before the conclusion of the trial, takes a nonsuit, he is not estopped by the doctrine of election of remedies from securing the reinstatement of the proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they having been, in the meantime, dismissed with leave to reinstate, and prosecuting them to a final conclusion.

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

Mb. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Workmen’s Compensation Aot, § 12*—when evidence that claimant has no education is admissible. On an appeal to the Circuit Court from the findings of the board of arbitrators and trial de novo before a jury, in proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, evidence that claimant has no education is admissible on the question of what limitations there are on claimant’s earning capacity after the accident and injury. 3. Evidence, § 410*—when physician may testify that later injury was caused by original injury. Where' there is no dispute as to the manner and cause of an injury, and no dispute that an injury has been sustained, it is competent for a physician to testify directly that a later malady was caused by the accident or original injury. 4. Appeal and error, § 1316*—when party cannot complain of any error in an instruction given for adverse party. A party cannot Complain of any error in an instruction given for the adverse party when it fails to set out its own instructions in the abstract, and it will be assumed that there may have been an instruction among those not set out which cured the error. 5. Workmen’s Compensation Act—when claimant not estopped to recover compensation by doctrine of election of remedies. Where an injured employee files a petition for the appointment of arbitrators under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and later commences an action on the case in the Circuit Court, claiming that the employer is liable to him under section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (J. & A. j[ 5451), because of an intentional omission to comply with statutory safety regulations, but, before the conclusion of the trial, takes a nonsuit, he is not estopped by the doctrine of election of remedies from securing the reinstatement of the proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they having been, in the meantime, dismissed with leave to reinstate, and prosecuting them to a final conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Ill. App. 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccurray-v-meadows-manufacturing-co-illappct-1918.