{ "id": 5578749, "name": "ALEJANDRO BOGATYREW et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIC WACHTER, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Bogatyrew v. Wachter", "decision_date": "1979-05-09", "docket_number": "No. 77-345", "first_page": "654", "last_page": "657", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 654" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "234 N.E.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Ill. App. 2d 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897955 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/90/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.E.2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. App. 2d 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5233420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/32/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N.E.2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2762277 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 N.E.2d 79", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 918", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2679413 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/7/0918-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N.E.2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5234475 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/33/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 N.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill. App. 2d 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2556852 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/83/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N.E.2d 177", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2601634 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/59/0245-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 480, "char_count": 7736, "ocr_confidence": 0.902, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.392765562779915 }, "sha256": "1d16bb9bd017fff505d51e4fbedc86ca599f1ac7397a4d31f92351306c26b1f2", "simhash": "1:e0875896922ca9ac", "word_count": 1319 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:26.554099+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ALEJANDRO BOGATYREW et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIC WACHTER, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JIG ANTI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiffs, Alejandro Bogatyrew and Rosemarie Thier, sought damages from the defendant, Eric Wachter, for personal injuries received as a result of his alleged negligence in an auto accident. A jury in the circuit court of Cook County returned a verdict in the defendant\u2019s favor and by a special interrogatory found that Bogatyrew was contributorily negligent. On appeal, Bogatyrew and Thier assert that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that it was a result of an inflammatory closing argument by the defendant\u2019s attorney.\nBogatyrew and Thier testified that on September 6, 1971, at about 6 p.m., with Thier as a passenger, Bogatyrew drove his Volkswagen north on Wells Street in Chicago, Illinois. The inner two lanes of that street run beneath elevated train tracks, with girders from the tracks on either side of them. There are two narrow outside lanes running from the girders to the curb of the street. On that evening the traffic was light. Bogatyrew and Thier said that when they were a block south of the intersection of Lake and Wells they saw the defendant\u2019s car at that intersection, facing south on Wells, waiting at a stop light. The car had its left indicator on, signaling a turn east on to Lake Street. Bogatyrew testified that they were about one-half block from the intersection when the traffic light turned green, but the car at Lake did not move. According to Bogatyrew and Thier only when their Volkswagen, traveling at a speed of 15 miles per hour, entered the intersection did the defendant\u2019s car begin to turn. Bogatyrew said he tried to halt the Volkswagen when he saw the car turn in front of him but could not. The Volkswagen struck the right rear panel of the turning car and was severely damaged. Both Bogatyrew and Thier claim they suffered injuries as a result of the collision. Bogatyrew specifically alleges that he developed epilepsy because of it.\nThe defendant testified that just before the accident he drove south on Wells and stopped his car at the red light at Lake. Intending to go east on Lake, he had activated the car\u2019s left turn signal. He looked for cars coming toward him, but did not see any. He said he started his turn immediately after the light changed to green. After almost completing the turn, with his car actually facing east on Lake Street, he saw Bogatyrew\u2019s car out of the comer of his eye as it struck the right rear portion of his car. From the impact he estimated Bogatyrew to be traveling at a rate of 35 to 40 miles per hour.\nBogatyrew and Thier argue the jury\u2019s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. They suggest the evidence shows that the defendant was negligent because he did not keep a reasonable lookout and that this failure caused the accident. They contend that the defendant\u2019s testimony that he did not see any cars coming toward him admits the negligence because it was clear from the record that their Volkswagen had to be visible to him before he made his turn. They rely on Payne v. Kingsley (1965), 59 Ill. App. 2d 245, 250, 207 N.E.2d 177, 179, which states:\n\u201cIt is well settled that one may not look with an unseeing eye and be absolved of the charge of negligence by asserting that he maintained a continuous lookout, yet failed to see that which he clearly should have seen.\u201d\nIn order to reverse the jury\u2019s verdict as against the manifest weight of the evidence we must be able to say that a conclusion opposite to the verdict is clearly evident. (Pozdro v. Dynowski (1967), 83 Ill. App. 2d 79, 226 N.E.2d 377.) However, an analysis demonstrates that the evidence can be interpreted to support the verdict. The jury could consider the physical condition of the street, with the elevated tracks over it and the girders lining it, and the evidence indicating the speed of the automobile and conclude that the defendant was not negligent in failing to see the Volkswagen before it struck him.\nThe municipal code of the City of Chicago states that a vehicle within an intersection, turning left, must yield the right of way to any car approaching from the opposite direction, if that car is \u201cwithin the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard \u201d \u201d (Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code 1971, par. 27 \u2014 214(d).) Bogatyrew and Thier argue that when the defendant made his turn they were so close to the intersection as to constitute an \u201cimmediate hazard,\u201d giving them the right of way. They cite several cases which they allege concern comparable fact situations where drivers who failed to yield the right of way were found to be negligent. See, e.g., Kosowski v. McDonald Elevator Co. (1962), 33 Ill. App. 2d 386, 179 N.E.2d 469; Havlovic v. Scilingo (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 918, 289 N.E.2d 79.\nAuto accidents rarely lend themselves to per se rules or easily applied formulas for evaluating the standard of care to be exercised by a driver. (Pennington v. McLean (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 577, 583, 158 N.E.2d 624, 627.) The jury\u2019s evaluation of the evidence and determination of who had the right of way, weighing the relative speed and distances of the vehicles, should not be lightly overturned. (Conner v. McGrew (1961), 32 Ill. App. 2d 214, 177 N.E.2d 417.) The facts in those cases cited by Bogatyrew and Thier, although similar, are not identical to the case at bar. Weather conditions, the density of traffic, the type of road and the positions of the various vehicles all differ enough from this case to distinguish those situations from it.\nFrom the testimony at trial the jury could have inferred that when the defendant started his turn Bogatyrew\u2019s Volkswagen was far enough away from the intersection that the act of turning was reasonable, giving the defendant, not Bogatyrew, the right of way. Both Bogatyrew and Thier testified that they were one-half block away from the intersection when the stop light turned green. The defendant testified that he immediately turned upon the change of the stop light. The defendant\u2019s car was damaged in the rear and from that it can be inferred that he had almost finished his turn when the accident occurred. Such inferences are reasonable and certainly support the verdict that Bogatyrew did not have the right of way and that the defendant\u2019s actions did not proximately cause the accident.\nIn his closing argument, the defendant\u2019s attorney suggested that if Bogatyrew was epileptic he should not be allowed to drive a car and he implied that Bogatyrew did not inform the State driver\u2019s licensing authority of the epileptic condition when obtaining a driver\u2019s license. No objection was made at trial to this argument. Bogatyrew and Thier now contend that these remarks were not based on the evidence and caused the jury to render the verdict based on passion and prejudice.\nIn this case, both the severity of Bogatyrew\u2019s injury and his credibility were at issue, making the comments arguably relevant. In light of these issues we do not find the comments so reprehensible as to necessitate the intervention by the trial court in the absence of an objection. The failure to object to the remarks at trial therefore waived this alleged error and we cannot consider the contentions on appeal. See Anderson v. Universal Delta (1967), 90 Ill. App. 2d 105, 234 N.E.2d 21.\nFor the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.\nAffirmed.\nSIMON, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JIG ANTI" } ], "attorneys": [ "William J. Harte, Ltd., for appellants.", "Dent, Hampton & McNeela (Delbert T. Been, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALEJANDRO BOGATYREW et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIC WACHTER, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 77-345\nOpinion filed May 9, 1979.\nWilliam J. Harte, Ltd., for appellants.\nDent, Hampton & McNeela (Delbert T. Been, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0654-01", "first_page_order": 676, "last_page_order": 679 }