{ "id": 8500441, "name": "Sophia McCambridge, Appellee, v. City of Chicago Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "McCambridge v. City of Chicago", "decision_date": "1913-04-03", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,966", "first_page": "513", "last_page": "516", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "178 Ill. App. 513" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "218 Ill. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3353702 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/218/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ill. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 844057 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/197/0607-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3411209 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/244/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 Ill. 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3242966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/190/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Ill. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3274438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/203/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 Ill. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3275571 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/203/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 Ill. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3182174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/170/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 Ill. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3180811 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/170/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. App. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2533207 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/117/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ill. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5635636 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/231/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5472299 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 Ill. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5459049 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/141/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ill. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3356035 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/217/0273-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 480, "char_count": 6813, "ocr_confidence": 0.482, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20510307743810546 }, "sha256": "f3dee9cc3f2f4cc777935caf0fcdca30bc1fa63d31ae8d0d1853d3e8328a08aa", "simhash": "1:343474d29c0f9116", "word_count": 1216 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sophia McCambridge, Appellee, v. City of Chicago Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Cook county for $1000 against the City of Chicago, rendered upon a verdict of a jury in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while walking on a defective sidewalk in said city on the evening of September 22, 1903.\nThe material facts, as disclosed by the evidence, are substantially as follows: On the evening in question, plaintiff, a woman of about 34 years of age, visited the home of a family named Taylor, on the west side of Artesian avenue, about midway between 35th and 36th streets, where she remained until about half past ten o\u2019clock, when she left to go to her own abode. Intending to board a car on 35tb street and knowing that the west side of Artesian avenue was tom up, she walked south to 36th street, crossed over to the east side of Artesian avenue, turned north, and was walking towards 35th street, when she stepped upon a board in the sidewalk, which \u201cflew up and tripped\u201d her, and \u201cone foot went down about a foot and a half under the sidewalk,\u201d and she \u201cfell lengthwise,\u201d sustaining a fracture of the wrist of her left arm, which caused her pain from that time down to the time of the trial, especially during bad weather. Plaintiff testified that as she got on the sidewalk in question she noticed it was \u201ckind of shaky,\u201d \u201cwas beginning to get rickety and * * * to wabble, under my knees,\u201d and \u201cwas going to be dangerous,\u201d and as she was not used to the sidewalk she \u201cwas kind of careful;\u201d that she \u201ccould not walk in the street,\u201d because it was muddy and dark; that she \u201claid there\u201d where she had fallen \u201cmaybe five minutes,\u201d when Mr. Taylor and a man named Love answered her calls, helped her up and assisted her back to the Taylor home, where Mrs. \u25a0 Taylor bathed her arm in warm water and rubbed her hand; that her hand was swollen and her arm \u201cblack up to the elbow;\u201d that she returned to her abode that night and when she arrived there she fainted, then sent for a physician who left medicine to rub on her hand; that her hand was then so swollen that the physician could not set it, but that he subsequently did so and put on a plaster cast which remained about five weeks; that she did not work for two or three months and earned no wages; that prior to the accident she earned $6 per week as a house servant; that her wages since have been considerably less; that the muscles of the arm do not work and when she handles \u201canything that is any size\u201d she drops it; that she has broken many dishes since her accident and on this account her wages have, on many occasions, been materially diminished. It was not disputed that the sidewalk at the point in question was rotten, with loose and missing boards, and that this condition had existed for snch a period of time as amounted to constructive notice thereof to the city.\nIt is urged by counsel for the city that plaintiff has failed to establish that she was in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety at the time of the accident, inasmuch as she continued to walk on the sidewalk after she was aware of its dangerous condition, when she could have easily left the sidewalk and walked without danger on the east side of the street, which was not torn up. Whether she was in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety was a question for the jury, under all the facts and circumstances in evidence. City of Mattoon v. Faller, 217 Ill. 273, 281; City of Sandwich v. Dolan, 141 Ill. 430; Village of Clayton v. Brooks, 150 Ill. 97; Wallace v. City of Farmington, 231 Ill. 232. We see no reason to disturb its conclusion on this point.\nIt is further urged that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff\u2019s witness, Mrs. Tripp, to testify that on one occasion plaintiff had \u201can awful look of pain on her face,\u201d and that on another occasion the witness heard plaintiff moaning and saying \u201c0! Mrs. Tripp! 0! Mrs. Tripp!\u201d We do not think that, under the decisions, the admission of the testimony constituted prejudicial error. While it has been held that self-serving narrative statements by an injured plaintiff \u201cthat he suffers pain are not competent proof in his behalf, unless they are a part of the res gestae, or are made to a physician during treatment, or upon an examination prior to and without reference to the bringing of an action to recover damages for the injury complained of, or unless the examination was made at the instance of the defendant and with a view to the trial; \u2019 \u2019 (Village of Gardner v. Paulson, 117 Ill. App. 17, 19; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Carr, 170 Ill. 478; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Kennelly, 170 Ill. 508; Lake Street El. R. Co. v. Shaw, 203 Ill. 39; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Donworth, 203 Ill. 192) \u201cyet the rule does not apply to natural manifestations of pain, such as the expression of the features, groans, screams and like indications of pain and suffering, notwithstanding it must he conceded that these can be feigned for self-serving purposes.\u201d Village of Gardner v. Paulson, supra; Cicero & P. St. Ry. Co. v. Priest, 190 Ill. 592; Lauth v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 244 Ill. 244, 250.\nCounsel further urge that the court erred in refusing to give instruction No. 16, offered by defendant. The propositions contained in this instruction seem to have been fully covered in instructions Nos. 8, 9 and 11, offered by defendant and given by the court. \u201cA correct instruction may be refused, where its substance is embodied in other instructions given.\u201d West Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Lieserowitz, 197 Ill. 607, 617; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Sawusch, 218 Ill. 130.\nWe do not think that the verdict is manifestly against the evidence, nor are we disposed to disturb it on the ground that it is excessive, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley" } ], "attorneys": [ "William H. SextoN and N. L. Piotrowski, for appellant ; David R. Levy, of counsel.", "Jtjle F. Brower and Samuel B. King, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sophia McCambridge, Appellee, v. City of Chicago Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,966.\n1. Evidence \u2014 exclamations of pain and expression of pain on features. In an action for personal injuries, it is not prejudicial error to admit testimony as to an expression of pain seen on plaintiff\u2019s face and as to her moaning and exclamations of pain.\n2. Instructions \u2014 repetition. An instruction may properly be refused when the propositions therein seem to have been fully covered in instructions given.\n3. Damages \u2014 not excessive. A verdict for $1,000 is not excessive where plaintiff\u2019s left wrist was fractured and caused her pain down to the time of trial.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry C. Moran, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 3, 1913.\nWilliam H. SextoN and N. L. Piotrowski, for appellant ; David R. Levy, of counsel.\nJtjle F. Brower and Samuel B. King, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0513-01", "first_page_order": 531, "last_page_order": 534 }