{
  "id": 2754125,
  "name": "Frank Chambers, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chambers v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,389",
  "first_page": "362",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 362"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "203 Ill. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3273376
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/203/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2557894
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/110/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 Ill. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3384301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/236/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 Ill. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3353449
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/218/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 Ill. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3274438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/203/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ill. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3411209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/244/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ill. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3359406
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/216/0176-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 4305,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.002059814313485e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5031990282058916
    },
    "sha256": "fb9ed44abafc35efda97bbfbe456c9fca7a42de681b28ba52f7eb7a0a23f57ce",
    "simhash": "1:4406b1084a7c85f9",
    "word_count": 723
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.550855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Chambers, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nFrank Chambers, appellee, having obtained a judgment against the Chicago City Bailway Company in an action on the case for personal injuries, appellant has brought the case to this court for review. Chambers received the injuries as the result of a collision between a street car belonging to appellant, and a buggy in which appellee was riding. The street car was going north on State street; the buggy was going south on the same street, but was turned eastward at Congress street, and while crossing the east or northbound track on State street was struck by the northbound car in question.\nAs we shall reverse this case for errors committed upon the trial, we do not now state or discuss the evidence concerning the happening of the accident.\nDr. Donlon, testifying for\" the plaintiff upon the trial touching the injuries received, was asked \u201cas to what would be the termination of such a case\u201d, and over objection answered, \u201cIt is very likely epilepsy.\u201d Dr. Murdock, testifying on the same matter on behalf of plaintiff, when asked as to what may result, replied, \u201cEpilepsy may result from the continuation of this character of irritation.\u201d It has repeatedly been held that to permit testimony as to possible future consequences of injuries received in error so. serious as to require a reversal. Inquiries as to future consequences must be confined to those which are reasonably certain to occur. Chicago Union Traction Co. v Lauth, 216 Ill. 176; Lauth v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 244 Ill. 244; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Donworth, 203 Ill. 192; Chicago City R. Co. v. Henry, 218 Ill. 92; Shaughnessy v. Holt, 236 Ill. 485; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Moore, 110 Ill. App. 304, and many other cases. These decisions are so well known to the bar that no quotations from them are necessary; they are conclusive- upon this question.\nWe are also of the opinion that instruction No. 3 given at plaintiff\u2019s request should not have been given in this case. Its definition of ordinary care as the care which a person of ordinary-prudence \u201cwould usually exercise under the same or similar circumstances,\u201d disregards the material inquiry as to whether a person of ordinary prudence would have permitted himself to be in the situation plaintiff was in and be surrounded by the same or similar circumstances. For this reason the giving of a similar instruction was strongly criticised in North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cossar, 203 Ill. 608.\nAs to the point that the trial court should have permitted the witness Cronin to testify we express no opinion, as upon the next trial his testimony may be available.\nFor the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Kehoe, C. Le Boy Brown and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.",
      "Bice & O\u2019Neil and Caswell & Healy, for appellee; Daniel M. Healy, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Chambers, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,389.\n1. Damages\u2014testimony as to possible future consequences of injuries is reversible error. Testimony as to what will he the termination or result of injuries, \u201c it is very likely epilepsy,\u201d and \u201cepilepsy may result from the continuation of irritation,\u201d is as to possible future consequences and is error so serious as to require a reversal.\n2. Damages-\u2014future consequences of injury. Inquiries as to the future consequences of injuries received must be confined to those which are reasonably certain to occur.\n3. Street railroads\u2014when instruction on due care is erroneous. Where a person riding in a buggy is injured in a collision with a street car, an instruction for the plaintiff defining ordinary care as the care which a person of ordinary prudence \u201cwould usually exercise under the same or similar circumstances,\u201d is improper in dis: regarding a material inquiry as to whether a person of ordinary prudence would have permitted himself to be in a situation plaintiff was in and he surrounded by the same or similar circumstances.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 29, 1912.\nJohn E. Kehoe, C. Le Boy Brown and Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.\nBice & O\u2019Neil and Caswell & Healy, for appellee; Daniel M. Healy, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0362-01",
  "first_page_order": 380,
  "last_page_order": 382
}