{
  "id": 2610752,
  "name": "City of Chicago v. M. L. Fields",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Fields",
  "decision_date": "1908-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 13,675",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "253",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "139 Ill. App. 250"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3187543
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "512"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0504-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 5508,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39275996399790103
    },
    "sha256": "7c75dace11da06ede174bdf6ac1f129886cb96f9ba7b1dd41202be746b7c26ca",
    "simhash": "1:2188f73c51f9c5d8",
    "word_count": 914
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:35:52.863125+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago v. M. L. Fields."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee recovered judgment against appellant in an action on the case, for injuries alleged to have been occasioned by a defective sidewalk in the city of Chicago. There is sufficient conflict in the evidence in respect to material matters to require that the instructions should he substantially accurate. The first instruction given at appellee\u2019s request is as follows:\n\u201cIf the jury find that the evidence sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s case preponderates in his favor, although but slightly, that is sufficient for the jury to find the issues in his favor, and to find a verdict against the defendant.\u201d\nThe instruction plainly assumes that the evidence sustains the plaintiff\u2019s case. The verb to sustain, as used in the instruction, can only mean \u201cto prove, to establish by evidence.\u201d Webster\u2019s dictionary. If the plaintiff\u2019s case was established by the evidence, there was nothing for the jury to do except to find for the plaintiff. \"The court does not, by the instruction, inform the jury what the plaintiff\u2019s case is, or limit the jury to the declaration, as by the use next after the word case of the words, as stated in the declaration. Counsel for appellee, assuming that the vice of the instruction can be cured by other instructions, refers to instruction 3 given at appellant\u2019s request, in respect to the preponderance of the evidence. But an instruction purporting to state elements which,.if proved, will warrant a verdict for a party, and so informing the jury, must be accurate, and if erroneous, cannot be cured by any other instruction. This, for the reason that the jury may have disregarded all other instructions and based their verdict solely on the erroneous instruction. \u201cIf an instruction directs a verdict for either party, or amounts to such direction, in case the jury shall find certain facts, it must, necessarily, contain all the facts which will authorize the verdict directed, * * * and the error in such an instruction is not obviated by giving conflicting instructions.\u201d Pardridge v. Cutler, 168 Ill., 504, 512; Lake Erie & West. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 189 ib., 89, 97-8; Ill. Iron & Metal Co. v. Weber, 196 ib., 526; Ill. Cen. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 208 ib., 608; Ill. Terra Cotta Lumber Co. v. Hanley, 214 ib., 243.\nThe instruction in question being the first given, was well\" calculated to mislead the jury to appellant\u2019s prejudice. Although the Supreme Court has held that it is not error to give an instruction that if the evidence preponderates in favor of the plaintiff, although but slightly, the plaintiff may recover, yet that court has never held that the refusal of such an instruction would be error, and, as we have heretofore stated in other cases, we think such an instruction is likely to impress a jury that the court favors the party at whose request it is given. We think the giving instruction 1 reversible error.\nThe 3rd instruction for appellee commences thus: \u201cIf the jury believe from the evidence that the corporate authorities of the city of Chicago did not exercise all reasonable care and supervision, according to the requirements of the law, as stated in the instructions herein, over that portion of the sidewalk where the injury in question is urged to have occurred, to keep it in good and safe condition,\u201d etc. Do instruction was given stating \u201cthe requirements of the law\u201d as to the duty of the city in the premises, so that the instruction is, in that respect, meaningless. Counsel for appellee say that the jury were advised by instruction 12, given for the defendant, what the requirements of the law are; but there were only eleven instructions given for the defendant. Defendant\u2019s instruction 12 was refused. We do not like the word \u201curged\u201d in the instruction. The word alleged would have been better. We merely call attention to this instruction with reference to a future trial. Because of the error in giving appellee\u2019s first instruction, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jambs II. Lewis and Joky K. Oaverly, for appellant; Chas. B, Stafford, of counsel",
      "Adams & Froehlich, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago v. M. L. Fields.\nGen. No. 13,675.\n1. Instructions\u2014when, upon preponderance of evidence, erroneous. An instruction upon the subject of preponderance of evidence, as follows, is erroneous in that it assumed that the evidence sustained the plaintiff\u2019s case:\n\u201cIf the jury find that the evidence sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s case preponderates in his favor, although but slightly, that it is sufficient for the jury to find the issues in his favor, and to find a verdict against the defendant.\u201d\n2. Instructions\u2014what does not cure error. An instruction purporting to state elements which, if proved, will warrant a verdict for a party, and so informing the jury, must be accurate and if erroneous will not be cured by any other instructions.\n3. Instructions\u2014when failure to explain references improper. It is improper to use in an instruction the phrase \u201cthe requirements of the law\u201d without specifying in another instruction what such requirements are.\n4. Instructions\u2014use of word, \u201curged\u201d criticised. Held, that the word \u201curged\u201d used in an instruction was of doubtful propriety, \u201calleged\u201d being the appropriate word.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1907.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1908.\nJambs II. Lewis and Joky K. Oaverly, for appellant; Chas. B, Stafford, of counsel\nAdams & Froehlich, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 266,
  "last_page_order": 269
}