Roberts v. Chicago City Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Roberts v. Chicago City Railway Co.

205 Ill. App. 594

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 29, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,387

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 594 (Roberts v. Chicago City 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

Roberts v. Chicago City Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 594 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Carriers, § 480*—when question as to due care of passenger is for jury. In an action for personal injuries through being thrown from a moving street car, the question as to whether plaintiff was exercising due care is for the jury, where the evidence in regard thereto is conflicting. 4. Damages, § 114*—when verdict for personal injuries is excessive. In an action for personal injuries, where the physical injuries testified to consisted mainly of bruises on various parts of the body without any breaking of bones, a cut over the eye requiring six stitches, one on the chin requiring one stitch, an injury to the right arm and right knee, a broken tooth, pains in various parts of the body, a threatened abortion, which was, however, successfully averted, and scars, not described as serious, and plaintiff was confined to her bed and under medical attention for about five or six weeks, and the evidence further tends to show that plaintiff attempted to enhance her damages in her testimony as to the value and loss of her services, judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $2,000 will not be affirmed save on a remittitur of $500.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Carriers, § 480*—when question as to due care of passenger is for jury. In an action for personal injuries through being thrown from a moving street car, the question as to whether plaintiff was exercising due care is for the jury, where the evidence in regard thereto is conflicting. 4. Damages, § 114*—when verdict for personal injuries is excessive. In an action for personal injuries, where the physical injuries testified to consisted mainly of bruises on various parts of the body without any breaking of bones, a cut over the eye requiring six stitches, one on the chin requiring one stitch, an injury to the right arm and right knee, a broken tooth, pains in various parts of the body, a threatened abortion, which was, however, successfully averted, and scars, not described as serious, and plaintiff was confined to her bed and under medical attention for about five or six weeks, and the evidence further tends to show that plaintiff attempted to enhance her damages in her testimony as to the value and loss of her services, judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $2,000 will not be affirmed save on a remittitur of $500.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-chicago-city-railway-co-illappct-1917.