{
  "id": 2827427,
  "name": "Mary Collins, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,383",
  "first_page": "176",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 176"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2372,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "e2189be42e05e350e5a2c7b14670ccc2d8234aa9f8525eda4e81750ed8f0338a",
    "simhash": "1:396ad496502e22fc",
    "word_count": 390
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Collins, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1447 \u2014what constitutes prejudicial error. Where two counts of a declaration for personal injuries each state a good cause of action which there is evidence to support, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty under a third count charging \u201cwilful and wanton misconduct,\u201d which is unsupported by the evidence, is not prejudicial error warranting reversal.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 62*\u2014what constitutes negligence in operation. In an action for personal injuries sustained by a woman while attempting to board an electric street car, due to the jolting or sudden starting of such car, held that the question as to whether the defendant was guilty of negligence was for the jury, and that their verdict was not manifestly against the evidence.\n3. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1490*\u2014what exclusion of evidence is harmless. Where the conductor of the car had testified that the motorman was trying to put plaintiff on the car and \u201cshe refused,\u201d causing a delay of several minutes, the conductor, in answer to a further question as to why the car was delayed, replied \u201cbecause she refused to get on.\u201d On motion of plaintiff this answer was stricken. Held, the exclusion of this latter statement was not prejudicial error, even assuming that the statement was one of fact and not an expression of an opinion or conclusion.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 138*\u2014-when requested instructions need not he given. The refusal to give certain instructions is not prejudicial error where the matter is sufficiently covered by the instructions given;",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for appellants; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.",
      "Blaisdell & Ranes, for appellees; H. F. Brewer, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Collins, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,383.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mazzini Sltjsseb, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Collins against Chicago City Railway Company for damages for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nJames G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for appellants; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.\nBlaisdell & Ranes, for appellees; H. F. Brewer, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0176-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 201
}