{
  "id": 2848122,
  "name": "Frank Semrau, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Semrau v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,912",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "205",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 203"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3750,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.662314693151384e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45208658883201297
    },
    "sha256": "7c03fc766f533fe13607ef7461e10b60fbaabf4f58a6ee4edad6e97a98c72596",
    "simhash": "1:c796409163bd203d",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Semrau, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warner H. Robinson and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.",
      "Royal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Semrau, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,912.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 17, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Frank Semrau against Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff and damages to his automobile resulting from a collision between one of defendant\u2019s cars and plaintiff\u2019s automobile at a street intersection. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand five hundred dollars, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 131 \u2014when recovery for injuries resulting from collision warranted by the evidence. In. an action against a street railway company to recover for injuries resulting from a collision between one of defendant\u2019s cars and plaintiff\u2019s automobile at a street intersection, a verdict for plaintiff on conflicting evidence as to the speed of the car and of the automobile at and prior to the accident, held warranted by the evidence.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 244 \u2014when admission of improper evidence of, not reversible error. In an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries and for damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile resulting from a collision with a street car, erroneously permitting plaintiff, over objection, to prove the difference between the market value of the automobile before and after the accident, held not reversible error where the proof of the personal injuries plaintiff received might alone justify the verdict and judgment, and there was no contention that the damages recovered are excessive.\n3. Instructions, \u00a7 49 \u2014when modified instructions as to preponderance of evidence and credibility of witnesses not misleading. An instruction as tendered told the jury that in determining where the preponderance or the greater weight of the evidence lies they were entitled to take into consideration several matters, and ended by saying \u201cand from all these circumstances and others that may occur to you as shown by the evidence, determine the degree of credibility,\u201d etc. The court modified the instruction by striking out the clause \u201cand from others that may occur to you.\u201d Held that the instruction was incorrect, both as tendered and as modified, for the reason that it did not tell the jury to take into consideration all the evidence, but that the giving of the instruction as modified did not mislead the jury in view of other instructions given.\n4. Street railroads, \u00a7 148 \u2014when erasures in modified instruction not misleading. An instruction tendered in effect told the jury that proof of failure of defendant street railway company to give warning was not of itself sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover, and then stated what plaintiff must prove in order to recover on that ground ending with the sentence \u201cand plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time and place of the accident he was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.\u201d The court gave the instruction after striking out the last sentence. Held, the fact that the words stricken out remained legible was not misleading as causing the jury to believe due care on part of plaintiff was unnecessary, the jury being otherwise instructed and the instruction not directing a verdict.\nWarner H. Robinson and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, of counsel.\nRoyal W. Irwin and Frank W. Koraleski, for appellee.\nSee Blinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 231
}