{
  "id": 852723,
  "name": "Francis M. Taylor v. Danville, Olney and Ohio River Railroad Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Danville, Olney & Ohio River Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1882-02-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "311",
  "last_page": "312",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 311"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Allen, 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Allen",
      "case_ids": [
        2138245
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/96/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2753955
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/91/0035-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5273469
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/55/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2775268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/85/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820131
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        816434
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/51/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Allen, 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Allen",
      "case_ids": [
        2138245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/96/0429-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1960,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.438490223178028e-08,
      "percentile": 0.516925697212463
    },
    "sha256": "4f9f541e565c8bf5fb2b765c79c0f4f9f75d56b0ac22495967472cfced9e21ce",
    "simhash": "1:cc58cba5662eb634",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:14:56.607874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francis M. Taylor v. Danville, Olney and Ohio River Railroad Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis suit was brought by appellant against appellee, to recover for an injury to his person, while traveling as a passenger on the cars of appellee.\nA verdict and judgment were rendered against appellant, from which he appeals to this court.\nThe assignment of errors questions the correctness of the instructions given for appellee.\nThese instructions wholly ignore the law of comparative negligence, and ought not to have been given; but they could not damage appellant. He was guilty of such negligence in riding on the platform at the time he received the injury, that he could not recover, unless the injury was wantonly or willfully inflicted, which the evidence does not tend to show in this ease. Quinn\u2019s Adm\u2019x v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. 51 Ill. 495; Hickey v. B. & L. R. R. Co. 14 Allen, 429; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Coultas, 67 Ill. 398.\nWhere a verdict is shown by the evidence to be so clearly right that, had it been otherwise, the court should have set it aside, such verdict will not be disturbed merely for the reason that there is error found in the instructions. In such cases it appears affirmatively that the party was not injured by such error, and hence has no right to complain. Burling\u2019s adm\u2019x v. I. C. R. R. Co. 85 Ill. 18.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. A. J. Hunter and Messrs. Hunt & Dyas, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Sellar & Dole, for appellee; cited Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Austin v. C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. 91 Ill. 35; Hickey v. B. & L. R. R. Co. 14 Allen, 429."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francis M. Taylor v. Danville, Olney and Ohio River Railroad Co.\nError in instructions\u2014Judgment affirmed.\u2014Where a verdict is shown, by the evidence to be so clearly right that, had it been otherwise, the court should have set it aside, it will not be disturbed merely for the reason that error is found in the instructions.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed February 3, 1882.\nMr. A. J. Hunter and Messrs. Hunt & Dyas, for appellant.\nMessrs. Sellar & Dole, for appellee; cited Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Baches, 55 Ill. 379; Austin v. C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. 91 Ill. 35; Hickey v. B. & L. R. R. Co. 14 Allen, 429."
  },
  "file_name": "0311-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 308
}