{
  "id": 2503320,
  "name": "Charles C. Haisler v. C. B. Hayden, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haisler v. Hayden",
  "decision_date": "1906-01-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,188",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "266",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 Ill. App. 264"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. App., 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2584868
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/104/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill App., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4857952
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/12/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. App., 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        858613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/53/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App., 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        871148
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/96/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill. App., 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4841236
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/8/0425-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 4229,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08152367184341636
    },
    "sha256": "5b4d19d10733ca8ef1659e054e0d226e5ed23b46ed46d8dc1242820260800464",
    "simhash": "1:b18c83215a9f0508",
    "word_count": 713
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:12:19.942913+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles C. Haisler v. C. B. Hayden, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court in an action to recover damages for an alleged overflow of water from appellant\u2019s premises in the second story of a building in Chicago, upon appellee\u2019s premises on the first floor of the same building.\nThe question before the court and jury was whether or not appellant, the defendant, was guilty of the negligence which caused the damage.\nAppellee requested and the court gave the following instruction :\n\u201c2. The court instructs the jury that in this cause the plaintiff is entitled to recover such damages, if any, suffered and sustained by him, as shown by the preponderance of the evidence, through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, if shown, in permitting the water to overflow the premises of the plaintiff from the premises of the defendant.\u201d\nThis instruction is had because it assumes facts not proven. It assumes that appellant owned and controlled the premises. It also assumes that the defendant, appellant, permitted the water to overflow. Both of these facts were strenuously disputed, if indeed, there was any evidence tending to show such facts.\nThe instruction is adroitly worded, and in our opinion was well calculated to mislead the jury. It tells the jury to proceed to the assessment of damages without first passing upon the issues in the case. They had no right to consider the assessment of damages until they had previously passed upon the issues of the case and decided them in favor of appellee. Felsenthal v. Block, 8 Ill. App., 425; City of Elgin v. Nofs, 96 Ill. App., 291.\nAppellee requested and the court gave the following instruction :\n\u201c3. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff sustained damages by reason of the defendant carelessly and negligently permitting the water to overflow the premises of the plaintiff, then your verdict should he for the plaintiff in such an amount as you believe from the evidence he is entitled to recover.\u201d\nThis instruction is subject to the same objections as the other instructions above quoted.\nThe evidence in this case discloses no facts upon which could be predicated a claim for exemplary or vindictive damages. This instruction is broad enough to cover such damages. The measure of recovery in this case should have been confined to such damages as appellee had sustained. Freeman Iron & Wire Co. v. Collins, 53 Ill. App., 29; James v. Johnson, 12 Ill App., 286.\nAppellant requested the following instruction:\n\u201cThe jury are instructed that if they believe from the evidence that the whole occurrence about the alleged overflow or leakage of water was a mere accident and that it happened without any fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, your verdict should be \u2018not guilty.\u2019 \u201d\nThe court refused to give the instruction. This was error. The instruction should have been given. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Simiesni, 104 Ill. App., 194, and authorities there cited.\nFor the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matthew J. Huss, for appellant.",
      "H. A. Lough, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles C. Haisler v. C. B. Hayden, Jr.\nGen. No. 12,188.\n1. Right of recovery\u2014when instruction as to, erroneous. An instruction which authorizes the jury to proceed to the assessment of damages before they have passed upon the question of the right to recover, is erroneous.\n2. Measure of damages\u2014when instruction as to, erroneous. In an action where punitive damages cannot properly be allowed, it is error to instruct the jury that they may find for the plaintiff in such amount as they believe \u2022 from the evidence the plaintiff is entitled to recover.\n3. Overflow of water\u2014when liability for, does not exist. The owner of premises from which water- has flowed to and upon the premises of another, is not liable for the resulting damage if such overflow was a mere accident. '\nAction on the case to recover damages for overflow of water. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. A. J. Clarity, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1905.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 30, 1906.\nMatthew J. Huss, for appellant.\nH. A. Lough, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 286
}