{
  "id": 2833571,
  "name": "Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gnatek v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,762",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 392"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2021,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "99b0b456510d3e0c885e24db2c6e26a66f0e2567091d3451080e042504d09837",
    "simhash": "1:db7fa93550aea3f0",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 226*\u2014when instruction on contributory negligence proper. Instruction that if plaintiff was injured while and because he was not in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, as an ordinary prudent and cautious person would exercise under the same circumstances, he could not recover, held proper.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 226*\u2014when instruction does not ignore question of defendant\u2019s negligence. An instruction that if the jury believes from the evidence that the sole cause of injury to plaintiff was his own negligence he cannot recover, held not erroneous because it ignores the question of defendant\u2019s negligence.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 162*\u2014words construed. Words \u201cestablished his case\u201d in an instruction, held not objectionable as not being equivalent to \u201cestablishing the issues essential to the maintenance of the action.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brady & Levy, for plaintiff in error; Matthew P. Brady, of counsel.",
      "Philip Rosenthal, Frank L. Kriete and William H. Symmes, for defendant in error; John R. Guilliams, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin Gnatek, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Railways Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 17,762.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Stbeet bailboads, \u00a7 131 \u2014sufficiency of the evidence. Evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict of jury that street car company was not guilty in an action for injuries resulting from collision with a wagon.\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Homes Abbott, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Martin Gnatek against Chicago Railways Company, a corporation, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of a car belonging to defendant colliding with a wagon driven by plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant of not guilty, plaintiff brings error.\nBrady & Levy, for plaintiff in error; Matthew P. Brady, of counsel.\nPhilip Rosenthal, Frank L. Kriete and William H. Symmes, for defendant in error; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 417
}