{
  "id": 5170251,
  "name": "Shea Therese Meyer, a Minor, by Eileen Meyer, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Henry Polivat, and Gilbert Heindenreich, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meyer v. Polivat",
  "decision_date": "1957-05-15",
  "docket_number": "Term No. 57-F-8",
  "first_page": "491",
  "last_page": "493",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 2d 491"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ill. App. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2992378
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "455"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/217/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2920546
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "112"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/208/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2945972
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "588"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/204/0576-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2867434
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/196/0403-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ill. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5030110
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "425"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/333/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill.2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2708626
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "608"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/6/0594-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.606757255699119e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6847708109623379
    },
    "sha256": "d86f7dc809424e1d35279b7c8a618798b63ecf607178d9564fc2a215d14e4939",
    "simhash": "1:62b5941651087561",
    "word_count": 683
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:00.454336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CULBERTSON and BARDENS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Shea Therese Meyer, a Minor, by Eileen Meyer, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Henry Polivat, and Gilbert Heindenreich, Defendants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHEINEMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a personal injury suit in which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The plaintiff\u2019s motion for new trial was allowed on the sole ground that an instruction tendered by plaintiff was erroneous or misleading. The defendants\u2019 petition for leave to appeal was granted by this court.\nIt is well settled law that a party cannot complain of errors which he has committed, invited, or induced the court to make, or to which he has consented. City of Waukegan v. Stanczak, 6 Ill.2d 594, 608; Johnson v. Luhman, 333 Ill. App. 418, 425; 2 I. L. P. 600, Appeal and Error, Sec. 672.\nOf necessity this principle must be applied to the tendering of instructions. Obviously, the law cannot tolerate the granting of a new trial to a party because of error in his own instructions. In this state, as well as elsewhere, attempts at such practice have always been repudiated. Fiedler v. Chicago Ry. Co., 196 Ill. App. 403; Warren v. Jackson, 204 Ill. App. 576, 588; Conover v. Wabash Ry. Co., 208 Ill. App. 105, 112; Kresin v. Brotherhood of American Yoemen, 217 Ill. App. 448, 455.\nAppellee cites nothing to the contrary, but attempts to have the questioned instruction (which was not numbered nor identified) declared to be a \u201cCourt\u2019s Instruction,\u201d and apparently now disclaims it.\nThe failure to identify the instruction, as required by the Practice Act, Section 67 [Ill. Rev. Stats. 1955, ch. 110, \u00a7 67], might present a problem. However, in this case there is no difficulty; at the conference on instructions, the proceedings were taken down and reported, and are set forth in the transcript.\nIt appears that another plaintiff\u2019s instruction, numbered 4, was objected to by the defense, and the judge indicated he would sustain the objection. Thereupon, plaintiff\u2019s counsel sa!id he would prepare another instruction, stating its proposed content, and contended that, with it, his number 4 instruction would be proper. The judge agreed, and inquired whether counsel would prepare the other instruction. Upon an affirmative answer, the court ruled that number 4 would then be given.\nIt further appears that plaintiff\u2019s attorney did prepare and tender the unidentified instruction. The court announced that the instruction as dictated by plaintiff\u2019s attorney would be given.\nWe find no merit in the assertion that this procedure makes the new instruction one charged only to the court. Of course, all instructions given by the court are the court\u2019s instructions in a general sense, but this does not determine who is responsible for an error therein.\nIt is not necessary to comment on the supposed error in the form dictated by plaintiff\u2019s attorney. We hold that where the court indicates he will refuse a tendered instruction unless there is a companion instruction submitted therewith, the tendering party may, at his option, suffer the refusal of the first, or prepare and tender the required companion instruction. If he chooses the latter course, he is responsible for the form he prepares and tenders. The mere fact that the court required a companion instruction as a condition to the giving of another instruction, does not relieve the party preparing the companion of the duty to prepare it in proper form. Any defect therein may be objected to by opposing counsel, but not by the party who prepared it.\nSince the granting of the new trial was an error of law, the order for a new trial is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment on the verdict.\nReversed and remanded.\nCULBERTSON and BARDENS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHEINEMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James L. Reed, and James H. Parsons, Jr., of Edwardsville, and C. R. Brady, and Brady, Donovan and Hatch, all of East St. Lonis, for defendants.",
      "Baker, Kagy & Wagner, of East St. Lonis, for plaintiff, \u25a0 Shea' Therese Meyer, a minor."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shea Therese Meyer, a Minor, by Eileen Meyer, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Henry Polivat, and Gilbert Heindenreich, Defendants.\nTerm No. 57-F-8.\nFourth District.\nMay 15, 1957.\nRehearing denied June 10, 1957.\nReleased for publication June 11, 1957.\nJames L. Reed, and James H. Parsons, Jr., of Edwardsville, and C. R. Brady, and Brady, Donovan and Hatch, all of East St. Lonis, for defendants.\nBaker, Kagy & Wagner, of East St. Lonis, for plaintiff, \u25a0 Shea' Therese Meyer, a minor."
  },
  "file_name": "0491-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 505
}