{
  "id": 2831904,
  "name": "Mary Sass, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sass v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,786",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "365",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28400883603638666
    },
    "sha256": "89d2e4fc20af31d4c53f76c3f804bddf530959059f40fff8abc64e37fedd4a43",
    "simhash": "1:da30b0f36c0913dc",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Sass, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Guerin, Gallagher & Barrett and E. H. Williams, for plaintiff in error.",
      "James G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for defendant in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Sass, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 17,786.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 14, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Sass against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 142*\u2014what instructions are erroneous. An instruction stating that a street car cannot be started without causing some \u201csudden motion and jerking\u201d is erroneous where a motorman testified that \u201cif you start a car slow it never jerks.\u201d\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 412*\u2014when doctrine of assumed rish does not apply. An instruction stating that a passenger on a street car \u201cassumes the risk\u201d of injury due to sudden motions of jerks is erroneous as .applying the doctrine of assumed risk to the' relationship of carrier and passenger and diverting the minds of the jury from the questions of negligence and due care.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 224*\u2014when instructions as to contributory negligence are unnecessary. Where evidence does not tend to show contributory negligence of a person injured by a street car, the giving of numerous instructions on such subject is unwarranted and prejudicial.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 14*\u2014when repetition of phrases is improper. Held that the giving of numerous instructions stating certain hypotheses and concluding with the statement that the jury \u201cshould find the defendant not guilty\u201d was prejudicial error, since such instructions were calculated to impress the jury with the thought that the court was against the plaintiff and that they should find for the defendant.\nGuerin, Gallagher & Barrett and E. H. Williams, for plaintiff in error.\nJames G. Condon and Watson J. Ferry, for defendant in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 389
}