{
  "id": 2841811,
  "name": "Blondon Fieldstack, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fieldstack v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,284",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3143,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "sha256": "dba5fac0b510744beca219b615eff12cdd183e139eeb588054f28efd8985fb90",
    "simhash": "1:8bf72538413b96ad",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Blondon Fieldstack, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 48 \u2014when instruction on weight of testimony not erroneous. Instruction relating to the weight of testimony containing the expression \u201cit is the duty of the jury to receive the testimony of such witness,\u201d held not objectionable because the word \u201creceive\u201d means \u201cadmit as true.\u201d\n6. Instructions, \u00a7 82*\u2014when not improper as mentioning the name of a witness. Fact that plaintiff\u2019s name is introduced in an instruction as to the weight of the testimony, held not objectionable where plaintiff\u2019s name is not mentioned as a witness.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard J. Finn, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. Kehoe and Watson J. Ferry, for defendant in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Blondon Fieldstack, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 18,284.\n(Not to fee reported in full.)\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 22, 1913.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 493 \u2014when 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.\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 482 \u2014when instruction not reversibly erroneous or misleading. Instruction which begins, \u201cIt is not every accident that makes a railway company liable for damages to the person injured by its cars,\u201d held not reversibly erroneous or misleading because it speaks of a person \u201cinjured by its cars\u201d when plaintiff was \u201cinjured by the car\u201d although the negligence charged was not in its operation.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 493 \u2014when 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 \u201cvigilance.\u201d\n4. Carriers, \u00a7 493 \u2014when instruction on care required of plaintiff not erroneous. Instruction not directing a verdict but stating an abstract proposition of law defining \u201cordinary care\u201d and referring the definition \u201cto the situation and position\u201d a person \u201cis about to take,\u201d in which he \u201cfinds himself,\" held not erroneous as not confining the plaintiff\u2019s duty to exercise care to the time and place of the accident.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Blondon Fieldstack against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from one of defendant\u2019s 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.\nRichard J. Finn, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. Kehoe and Watson J. Ferry, for defendant in error; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 101
}