{
  "id": 2615793,
  "name": "Anna Thielker, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry W. F. Thielker, deceased, Appellant, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thielker v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "141",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "140 Ill. App. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5214,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "77269f0f9939cc64c6aa974e94474964463712f0353c177b88f0429ffd87ee98",
    "simhash": "1:8984a15ad98e8559",
    "word_count": 891
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:04.800732+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anna Thielker, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry W. F. Thielker, deceased, Appellant, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in case, in the Circuit Court of St. Clair county, by appellant against appellee, to recover for the death of appellant\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of appellee. Trial by jury. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the defendant moved the court to exclude all of the evidence and for an instruction directing the jury to return a verdict finding the defendant not guilty. The court granted the motion, the jury returned a verdict in accordance with the court\u2019s direction, and the court rendered judgment on the verdict against the plaintiff in bar of the action and for costs. Plaintiff duly excepted, and brings the case to this court by appeal.\nThe question presented is whether the record discloses any evidence tending to prove all that is required to warrant a recovery by the plaintiff upon the case stated in her declaration as therein stated. In resolving this question the court is not authorized to weigh the evidence, but only to inspect the record and ascertain whether it contains any evidence tending to establish every requisite fact.\nThe declaration consists of four counts. Three of them charge, in substance, that Henry W. C. Thielker, appellant\u2019s intestate, was a passenger on one of appellee\u2019s cars, on his way from Bast St. Louis to Schmidt\u2019s Mound, and that appellee negligently maintained one of its trolley poles so close to the track of its road that appellant\u2019s intestate, while in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, unavoidably came in contact therewith and was thereby killed. The fourth count charges that appellee negligently failed to give appellant\u2019s intestate due and timely notice that it had a trolley pole so close to its car track as to be dangerous to passengers, and that appellant\u2019s intestate, while in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, was unavoidably struck by such pole and so badly injured thereby that he died in consequence thereof.\nAppellee was engaged in operating an interurban line of electric railway from some point in the city of East St. Louis across country by way of Collins-ville to the city of Edwardsville, a distance of twenty-five miles. Along so much of its line as was within the limits of the city of East St. Louis it had regular stopping places, and in the country between cities it had regular stations from two to three miles apart. Schmidt\u2019s Mound was one of these country stations. The cars were large and could carry 175 passengers, were equipped with air brakes and had a speed between stations of from thirty to forty miles per hour. The poles supporting the trolley wire stood near the railroad track, pole 213, the one with which appellant\u2019s intestate collided, being but three feet from the track. This left a space of but ten inches between the pole and a passing car.\n\"When appellant\u2019s intestate entered the car the seats were all occupied, and he stood up in the aisle of the smoking compartment. When within about four or five hundred feet of Schmidt\u2019s station, the conductor announced the station and gave the motorman the station signal and the motorman began to slacken the speed of the car. About this time a fellow-passenger observed appellant\u2019s intestate standing \u201cstraight up\u201d on the lower step of the platform, \u201cahold of two hand holds, facing the car.\u201d This witness did not see him take that position, nor see in what position he was at the immediate time of the injury. One other witness saw him on the step, and saw him immediately before the injury and at the instant of' it. He was then standing on the lower step, facing the car, \u201chad hold of two hand holds, leaning out at full arm\u2019s length,\u201d when his body collided with pole 213.\" The car had not yet reached the station by 200 feet or more, and was running at a speed of from eight to twelve miles per hour.\nOne of the material facts requisite to appellant\u2019s right to recover is that her intestate \u201cwas in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety at the time of his injury, \u2019 \u2019 and there is in this record no evidence nor any reasonable inference tending to prove that fact. It is apparent to the court that, under the undisputed facts of this case, all disinterested reasonable minds will agree that appellant\u2019s intestate voluntarily placed himself in a. position of danger without any justification or reasonable excuse therefor..\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Vandeventee and W. E. Knowles, for appellant.",
      "Schaefer, Farmer & Kruger, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anna Thielker, Administratrix of the Estate of Henry W. F. Thielker, deceased, Appellant, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellee.\n1. Contbibutoey negligbnoe\u2014what is as matter of law. One who voluntarily places himself in a position of danger, without any justification or reasonable excuse therefor, is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nAction in case for death caused by alleged wrongful act. Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Chas. T. Moobe, Judge; presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1907.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 18, 1908.\nW. M. Vandeventee and W. E. Knowles, for appellant.\nSchaefer, Farmer & Kruger, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 156,
  "last_page_order": 159
}