#### Blondon Fieldstack, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 18,284.

(Not to fee reported in full.)

Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 22, 1913.

*76Abstract of the Decision.

1. Carriers, § 493 * —when instructions not misleading. In an action for injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from a street car, instructions proper on the subject of due care on the part of plaintiff held not objectionable as misleading because they were drawn on the theory that the negligence charged is the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its car.

2. Carriers, § 482 * —when instruction not reversibly erroneous or misleading. Instruction which begins, “It is not every accident that makes a railway company liable for damages to the person injured by its cars,” held not reversibly erroneous or misleading because it speaks of a person “injured by its cars” when plaintiff was “injured by the car” although the negligence charged was not in its operation.

3. Carriers, § 493 * —when instruction on care required of plaintiff not erroneous. Instruction requiring the plaintiff to exercise prudence and vigilance for his own safety, held not misleading and reversibly erroneous because it contains the word “vigilance.”

4. Carriers, § 493 * —when instruction on care required of plaintiff not erroneous. Instruction not directing a verdict but stating an abstract proposition of law defining “ordinary care” and referring the definition “to the situation and position” a person “is *77about to take,” in which he “finds himself," held not erroneous as not confining the plaintiff’s duty to exercise care to the time and place of the accident.

*76Statement of the Case.

Action by Blondon Fieldstack against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from one of defendant’s street cars at a street intersection and alleged to have been caused by the slanting and slippery condition of the street leading down to the street ear track. To reverse a judgment of nil capiat and for costs against the plaintiff, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.

Richard J. Finn, for plaintiff in error.

John E. Kehoe and Watson J. Ferry, for defendant in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

*775. Instructions, § 48 * —when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression “it is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,” held not objectionable because the word “receive” means “admit as true.”

6. Instructions, § 82*—when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff’s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff’s name is not mentioned as a witness.