{
  "id": 2552122,
  "name": "Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Joseph Klaybolt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Klaybolt",
  "decision_date": "1904-03-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "406",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 406"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2598349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/101/0040-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 3030,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08210150475954389
    },
    "sha256": "36de249bc59c2782af2ce9b3a3ed6048a69453d6305734cb9363f966f373f58e",
    "simhash": "1:90dc89fe218923f0",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:28.128679+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Joseph Klaybolt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in the City Court of Alton, by appellee against appellant, to recover damages resulting from a personal injury to appellee, and for damages to his wagon sustained by appellee, while attempting to cross appel1 ant\u2019s railroad track. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for \u00a7500.\nAppellant\u2019s railroad track runs along the center of Fiasa street and across Third street, in the city of Alton. Appellee was driving a sprinkling wagon, sprinkling the streets in the vicinity of the crossing of Fiasa and Third streets, and was struck by a backing train, as he was attempting to drive across the railroad track.\nThe issues of fact involved in this case are, as to the negligence of appellant and due care and caution of appellee. To warrant a recovery, it devolved upon appellee to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that appellant was guilty of the negligence charged, and that such negligence contributed to his injury, but that he was not at the time guilty of any negligence on his part which contributed thereto.\nWhile we do not feel warranted in holding that there is no evidence in this record tending to prove appellee\u2019s case, still the state of the evidence as to appellee\u2019s conduct on the occasion of his injury is such, in our judgment, as to clearly bring the case under the rule expressed in St. Louis National Stock Yards v. Godfrey, 101 Ill. App. 40 (48). We there said: \u201c It is true that although there may be evidence tending to prove all that is required to warrant a recovery, still, where the verdict is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to make it apparent to the court that the verdict was not the result of impartial and honest judgment of the jury, but that it must have resulted from mistake, or from partiality, prejudice, passion, or some improper motive or conduct, it is the duty of the court to set aside the verdict and award a new trial.\u201d\nAs this case may be tried again we deem it improper to further discuss the evidence here.\nThe judgment of the City Court of Alton is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles P. Wise, for appellant.",
      "John F. McGinnis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Joseph Klaybolt.\n1. Verdict\u2014when, set aside. Notwithstanding there may be evidence tending to prove all that is required to warrant a recovery, still where the verdict is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to make it apparent to the court that it was not the result of the impartial and honest judgment of the jury, but must have resulted from mistake, partiality, prejudice, passion or some improper motive or conduct, it is the duty of the court to set aside the verdict and award a new trial.\nAction on the case for personal injuries. Appeal from-the City Court of Alton; the Hon, John B. Vatjghn, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1903.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1904.\nCharles P. Wise, for appellant.\nJohn F. McGinnis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0406-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}