Paden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

200 Ill. App. 100, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 5
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedDecember 27, 1915
DocketGen. No. 6,142
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 Ill. App. 100 (Paden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific 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
Paden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 200 Ill. App. 100, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 5 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Damages, § 205*—when instruction that damages can only he based upon injury complained of is necessary. Where a plaintiff in a personal injury action is suffering disability that may have arisen only in part from the injury complained of, instructions as to the measure of damages that might otherwise be good should he carefully guarded, and the jury clearly informed that damages can be based only upon the injury complained of. 4. Damages, § 202*—when instruction on measure of damages for personal injuries not misleading. In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by a teamster engaged in unloading coal from a car on a railroad side track, as the result of the car being struck by another car so as to cause plaintiff to fall to the ground, an instruction on the measure of damages that if the jury found the defendant guilty in assessing damages “they should take into consideration all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence before them, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s physical injuries, if any, so far as the same are alleged in the declaration and shown by the evidence,” held not misleading where the court gave other instructions limiting the plaintiff's damages to such as were the proximate result of the defendant's neglect, and were not due to other causes, and specifically told them that if they found from the evidence that the condition of plaintiff’s rupture which necessitated the operation he underwent did not result from’the accident as the natural and proximate consequence thereof, then, in determining the damages, they should leave out of consideration the fact of the operation, the time lost thereby, and the expense paid and suffering connected therewith.

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

Related

Simonich v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
217 Ill. App. 336 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Wagner v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
200 Ill. App. 305 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 Ill. App. 100, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paden-v-chicago-rock-island-pacific-railway-co-illappct-1915.