Osberg v. Cudahy Packing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Osberg v. Cudahy Packing Co.

198 Ill. App. 551

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 12, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,292

StatusPublished

This text of 198 Ill. App. 551 (Osberg v. Cudahy Packing 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

Osberg v. Cudahy Packing Co., 198 Ill. App. 551 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

8. Instructions, § 131*—when refusal of instruction ignoring theories of case proper. In an action to recover for personal injuries to a child by defendant’s automobile, an instruction that “if the child ran in front of the automobile so suddenly that the driver had no notice of any danger,” etc., then plaintiff could not recover, is properly refused since it fails to take into consideration the question whether the accident was the result of such negligent driving as made it impossible for defendant’s chauffeur to avoid the accident after seeing the child. 9. Evidence, § 52*—when refusal of evidence not connected with physical facts of case not error. In an action for personal injuries, the refusal to permit a witness to testify as to what was visible to him at a certain point is not error, where such point was not the one from which the accident was seen by another Witness to whose testimony the question related.

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

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

8. Instructions, § 131*—when refusal of instruction ignoring theories of case proper. In an action to recover for personal injuries to a child by defendant’s automobile, an instruction that “if the child ran in front of the automobile so suddenly that the driver had no notice of any danger,” etc., then plaintiff could not recover, is properly refused since it fails to take into consideration the question whether the accident was the result of such negligent driving as made it impossible for defendant’s chauffeur to avoid the accident after seeing the child. 9. Evidence, § 52*—when refusal of evidence not connected with physical facts of case not error. In an action for personal injuries, the refusal to permit a witness to testify as to what was visible to him at a certain point is not error, where such point was not the one from which the accident was seen by another Witness to whose testimony the question related.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 Ill. App. 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osberg-v-cudahy-packing-co-illappct-1916.