{
  "id": 2832477,
  "name": "Victoria Boyrezka, Appellee, v. Thomas Janowski, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boyrezka v. Janowski",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,380",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2165,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "sha256": "4a686773f45da7883db4fd588733c227996aacc8eef3908fcbfb17d857998a5a",
    "simhash": "1:5d92a882502f92fc",
    "word_count": 356
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Victoria Boyrezka, Appellee, v. Thomas Janowski, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Royal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellant.",
      "F. W. Jaros, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Victoria Boyrezka, Appellee, v. Thomas Janowski, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,380.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John McNutt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Animals, \u00a7 40 \u2014scope of averments charging negligence of owner of dog. A count in a declaration averring negligence of defendant in suffering a dog \u201cto run at large without taking due and proper care to secure the same,\u201d held to permit recovery for failure to guard or securely muzzle the dog.\n2. Animals, \u00a7 48*\u2014when instruction may ignore defense of contributory negligence. Instruction permitting recovery for a dog bite may ignore defense of contributory negligence where the evidence does not tend to prove such a defense.\n3. Animals, g 48*\u2014when instruction as to damages not improper. An instruction on measure of damages for a dog bite limiting the jury to the consideration of injuries and damages as shown by the evidence, held not to authorize recovery for injuries which cannot he legally considered where no evidence of injuries of that character.\n4. Trial, \u00a7 233*\u2014when declaration may be taken to jury room. Court may permit the declaration to go to the jury room where the instructions are so framed as to be meaningless to the jury without it.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 111*1\u2014when not objectionable permitting recovery on eliminated counts. Instruction permitting recovery if jury believes plaintiff was injured \u201cin manner and form as set out in plaintiff\u2019s declaration, or any count thereof,\u201d held not objectionable as permitting a recovery under a count eliminated by a specific instruction.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Victoria Boyrezka against Thomas Janowski to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff from a bite by defendant\u2019s dog. From a judgment for plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.\nRoyal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellant.\nF. W. Jaros, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 121,
  "last_page_order": 122
}