Ringdahl v. Johnson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ringdahl v. Johnson

205 Ill. App. 235

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 9, 1917

DocketGen. No. 6,326

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 235 (Ringdahl v. Johnson) 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

Ringdahl v. Johnson, 205 Ill. App. 235 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Street railroads, § 135*—when question whether pedestrian crossing track is guilty of contributory negligence is for jury. In an action for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was about to cross a street car track in the business district of a town where the tracks of a steam railroad company were located about one hundred feet away, and where just before the plaintiff was struck by the car in question, which was going at the rate of twelve to fifteen miles an hour, his attention was suddenly directed to a bell ringing on the gate tower of the railroad, and he for an instant looked in that direction and did not see the street car, and where there was an ordinance requiring the street car to be under complete control of the motorman as it approached street crossings, held that the question as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was one for the jury, and that .the judgment for plaintiff should be affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Street railroads, § 135*—when question whether pedestrian crossing track is guilty of contributory negligence is for jury. In an action for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was about to cross a street car track in the business district of a town where the tracks of a steam railroad company were located about one hundred feet away, and where just before the plaintiff was struck by the car in question, which was going at the rate of twelve to fifteen miles an hour, his attention was suddenly directed to a bell ringing on the gate tower of the railroad, and he for an instant looked in that direction and did not see the street car, and where there was an ordinance requiring the street car to be under complete control of the motorman as it approached street crossings, held that the question as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was one for the jury, and that .the judgment for plaintiff should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ringdahl-v-johnson-illappct-1917.