Quinlivan v. Ready & Callaghan Coal Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Quinlivan v. Ready & Callaghan Coal Co.

202 Ill. App. 224, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 894

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 18, 1916

DocketGen. No. 22,455

StatusPublished

This text of 202 Ill. App. 224 (Quinlivan v. Ready & Callaghan Coal 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

Quinlivan v. Ready & Callaghan Coal Co., 202 Ill. App. 224, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 894 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Negligence, § 191*—when negligence of driver of wagon in injuring child is question for jury. In an action for the death of a child four years old which was run over by a dump wagon which was attached to a sprinkling wagon, where it appeared that the driver of the sprinkling wagon was seated upon a high seat in such a position that he might have seen, had he looked, what a crowd of children were doing at the time of and just before the accident; that the horses were walking, and that the driver did in fact see these children as he approached them, held that it was a question for the jury to determine whether the driver might have anticipated that any one of these children would, under the circumstances, do as deceased did and by the exercise of reasonable care could have avoided the accident.

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. Negligence, § 191*—when negligence of driver of wagon in injuring child is question for jury. In an action for the death of a child four years old which was run over by a dump wagon which was attached to a sprinkling wagon, where it appeared that the driver of the sprinkling wagon was seated upon a high seat in such a position that he might have seen, had he looked, what a crowd of children were doing at the time of and just before the accident; that the horses were walking, and that the driver did in fact see these children as he approached them, held that it was a question for the jury to determine whether the driver might have anticipated that any one of these children would, under the circumstances, do as deceased did and by the exercise of reasonable care could have avoided the accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 Ill. App. 224, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinlivan-v-ready-callaghan-coal-co-illappct-1916.