{
  "id": 2828182,
  "name": "Sam Weil, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weil v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,424",
  "first_page": "109",
  "last_page": "110",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 109"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 1979,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2883625647672895
    },
    "sha256": "4beae88a3beb423e276f6a9a8ecfa781f68ec9b8920ea027fab3a00fba1cfb27",
    "simhash": "1:8dd0ab82522fb69e",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sam Weil, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Franklin B. Hussey and C. Le Roy Brown, for appellant ; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.",
      "Levy & O\u2019Donnell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sam Weil, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,424.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richabd S. Tttthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nRehearing denied October 23, 1913.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 142 \u2014when instruction on degree of care erroneous. Instruction requiring motorman to stop his car \u201cin the shortest possible time and space\u201d to avert a collision, held erroneous.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 142*\u2014when instruction improper as assuming facts. Instructions assuming that a particular act or omission on the part of the motorman constitutes negligence, held improper.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 149*\u2014when refusal of requested instruction is error. Refusal to give an instruction which correctly states the rule applicable to defendant\u2019s theory of the case, there being evidence, to support such theory and the principle therein not being covered by other instructions, held \u00e9rror.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1652*\u2014when erroneous instruction not cured by others. Instruction, erroneous in requiring motorman to exercise highest degree of care to avert a collision, not cured by other instructions where it directs a verdict on finding the facts to be as stated therein.\n\u2022Statement of the Case.\nAction by Sam Weil against the Chicago City Railway Company to recover for personal injuries resulting from a collision of one of defendant\u2019s cars with a wagon upon which plaintiff, as driver, was attempting to cross defendant\u2019s tracks at a street intersection. From a judgment for plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nFranklin B. Hussey and C. Le Roy Brown, for appellant ; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.\nLevy & O\u2019Donnell, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, game topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0109-01",
  "first_page_order": 133,
  "last_page_order": 134
}