{
  "id": 2538956,
  "name": "Virgil Turner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Turner v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1968-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,514",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 Ill. App. 2d 38"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "53 NE2d 34",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ill App 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2423910
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/321/0186-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 4636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.638,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0857568062279364e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5636048665385511
    },
    "sha256": "57283c15273a93f2e35182681ace307588eeb03e24af2986065cbaf0e59a1310",
    "simhash": "1:4e4598b57d25e877",
    "word_count": 777
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:57.800656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Virgil Turner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff filed his action against the City of Chicago for personal injuries which he sustained in a fall on a public sidewalk in the City of Chicago. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the trial court entered a finding for the City. Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from that adverse finding.\nThe plaintiff produced two independent witnesses who identified photographs of the sidewalk in front of 2208 West 13th Street in Chicago, Illinois. The photographs clearly show one cement square of the sidewalk as higher than the adjacent square and a gap between these two squares. One of the witnesses testified that this condition has existed since 1958.\nPlaintiff testified that he was walking along the sidewalk when his foot stepped into the \u201chole\u201d between the level cement square and the raised cement square. Plaintiff fell over on his left shoulder and could not raise his arm after the fall. He went to Cook County Hospital and stayed there for two days and two nights. He described the treatment he received at the hospital which included placing his arm in a cast and putting weights on the end of his arm to stretch it out. Plaintiff also testified, and this was corroborated by one of the independent witnesses, that he worked as a bartender prior to the accident, but subsequently was unable to continue this work. His pay as a bartender was $65 per week. The accident occurred on January 19, 1963, and plaintiff did not go back to work until September 23, 1963. He claimed the only money that he lost was $2,080 in wages.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the following colloquy occurred:\nThe Court: \u201cDo you have any medical testimony ?\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s Attorney: \u201cNo.\u201d\nThe Court: \u201cFinding for the defendant, if there is no medical.\u201d\nThis ruling by the trial court was erroneous and the case must be remanded for a new trial. There is no requirement that a plaintiff produce medical testimony where the plaintiff clearly testifies to his injuries and the medical treatment he received. There is no conflict in this case as to the nature of the injury or its causation.\nIn the case of Palmer v. DeFilippis, 321 Ill App 186, 53 NE2d 34 (1944), the plaintiff testified as to injuries she received but did not produce any medical testimony with respect thereto. This court stated at page 198:\n\u201cThe law does not require that plaintiffs in every personal injury case produce a doctor to testify as to injuries alleged to have been sustained. Nor did defendants contend at the time of the introduction of the testimony in question that it was necessary for plaintiffs to produce medical experts to testify as to their injuries. It is customary for plaintiffs in injury cases to testify as to injuries they claim they received. If the instant contention of defendants is sound, then if a plaintiff lost an arm or a leg in an accident he would be compelled to call a doctor to testify to that fact.\u201d\nThe City contends that \u201cthe trial court, as the sole judge of the credibility of plaintiff\u2019s uncorroborated testimony, properly found that the plaintiff suffered no damage.\u201d From the above quoted colloquy between counsel and the court, it does not appear that this was the basis of the trial judge\u2019s ruling. However, such a finding would be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiff testified to pain and suffering in connection with his fall on the City\u2019s sidewalk. He further testified to the medical treatment he received, including a description of having his arm placed in traction. It is also uncontradicted that he still suffers pain in his arm and shoulder. In addition, plaintiff testified to lost wages. The fact that plaintiff worked as a bartender was corroborated by an independent witness. These facts constitute a prima facie showing of damages. The City had the burden of going forward with the evidence to show either that plaintiff was not injured on its sidewalk, or that he suffered no loss of wages or any other damages.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nBURMAN, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patrick E. Mahoney and Seymour Lacob, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Raymond F. Simon, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Harry H. Pollack, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Virgil Turner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nGen. No. 51,514.\nFirst District, First Division.\nApril 15, 1968.\nPatrick E. Mahoney and Seymour Lacob, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRaymond F. Simon, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Harry H. Pollack, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 44,
  "last_page_order": 47
}