{
  "id": 2826718,
  "name": "Emil Schaedel, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schaedel v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,020",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2806,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "8647fd489b7b4964fe27c44bcc86000ee7ceee3adb0afed18d548924bc0fc830",
    "simhash": "1:ab5cd0b4002ddc28",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emil Schaedel, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph D. Ryan and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; John B. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Edward Maher and James L. Bynum, for appellee; Bernhardt Frank, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emil Schaedel, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,020.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nRehearing denied October 23, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Emil Schaedel against Chicago Railways Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while attempting to cross defendant\u2019s tracks at street intersection in front of one of defendant\u2019s cars. From a judgment for one thousand five hundred dollars in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 97 \u2014care of pedestrian in crossing tracks. A pedestrian in attempting to cross the street with knowledge that a street car is rapidly approaching, is hound only to exercise a reasonable judgment in view of all the circumstances.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 97 \u2014when pedestrian with knowledge of approaching car may cross track. Whether it is prudent for a pedestrian to cross tracks with knowledge that a street car is rapidly approaching depends upon the distance he has to go, the apparent speed of the car and other like circumstances.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 113*\u2014when plaintiff\u2019s testimony that he heard no gong, admissible. Testimony of plaintiff in an action for personal injuries that he heard no gong or bell is admissible as .bearing upon the question whether plaintiff exercised due care.\n4. Street railroads, \u00a7 111*\u2014presumption considered in determining due care of plaintiff. Presumption that motorman will exercise due care in the operation of street car may be considered in determining the question of contributory negligence.\n5. Street railroads, \u00a7 135*\u2014questions for jury. Question whether a person had reasonable grounds to believe that he had time to cross track before street car would reach him, is for the jury.\n6. Street railroads, \u00a7 144*\u2014instruction defining \u201cordinary care.\u2019\u2019 Instruction defining the words \u201cordinary care\u201d to mean \u201cthat degree of care which a reasonably prudent or cautious person would take to avoid injury under like circumstances\u201d held not objectionable as limiting question of due care of plaintiff to the time of the injury.\n7. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1241*\u2014when party cannot complain of error in instructions. Appellant cannot complain of instructions given, where his own instructions are objectionable for same fault.\nMcSurely, P. J., dissenting.\nJoseph D. Ryan and Frank L. Kriete, for appellant; John B. Guilliams, of counsel.\nEdward Maher and James L. Bynum, for appellee; Bernhardt Frank, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 94,
  "last_page_order": 95
}