{
  "id": 2849218,
  "name": "Leroy R. Parker, Appellee, v. Crane Company et al., on appeal of Crane Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parker v. Crane Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,959",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "379",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 4798,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "8f95353364bf01262fc5a7f1aa663417213d2e98d4422f08e92148a030065f98",
    "simhash": "1:4b27b1ed50afea55",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leroy R. Parker, Appellee, v. Crane Company et al., on appeal of Crane Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 436 \u2014sufficiency of hypothetical questions. A party is not obliged in his hypothetical question to assume all the facts in evidence that may bear on the answer sought; the course is always open to the other party to supply, on cross-examination, an omission deemed material.\n3. Witnesses, \u00a7 210 '\u2014when hypothetical questions do not invade province of jury. Questions calling for answers upon a hypothetical state of facts and not for ultimate facts, held not to invade the province of the jury.\n4. Witnesses, \u00a7 218 \u2014when sustaining objection to question as submission to physical examination harmless. In an action for personal injuries, where plaintiff was asked by defendant\u2019s counsel, \u201cWill you submit to a physical examination of doctors that I select,\u201d and the plaintiff answered, \u201cyes * * * if you can arrange it with the attorneys,\u201d action of court in sustaining an objection to a further question, \u201cRegardless of what your attorneys say, will you or will you not submit to a physical examination,\u201d held harmless.\n5. Witnesses, \u00a7 220 \u2014when cross-examination of experts limited to inquiry on direct examination. In an action for personal injuries, where one of plaintiff\u2019s attending physicians testified to objective symptoms found by him upon examination of plaintiff, counsel for defendant on cross-examination cannot obtain opinions as to the consequences of such symptoms if they were not inquired of on direct examination.\n6. Witnesses, \u00a7 226 \u2014when questions on cross-examination characterizing plaintiffs illness improper. In an action for personal injuries, objection to a question asked by defendant\u2019s counsel on cross-examination of one of plaintiff\u2019s witnesses characterizing plaintiff\u2019s illness as a \u201cfit,\u201d held properly sustained where there is nothing in the record to warrant such a characterization.\n7. Witnesses, \u00a7 183 \u2014sufficiency of answers. In an action for personal injuries, certain lay witnesses testified to the general appearance of plaintiff after the accident. The defendant objected on the ground that they should be required to state his appearance as they observed it on each specific occasion. Held that the answers contained nothing the witnesses might not properly testify to, and did not preclude defendant from making a more specific inquiry.\n8. Witnesses, \u00a7 257 \u2014when variance in testimony not material for the purpose of impeachment. In an action for personal injuries, a witness for plaintiff testified he \u201cfelt the jar\u201d of the collision. On cross-examination he characterized it as a \u201cslight jar.\u201d Later, when recalled for cross-examination for impeachment, he was asked if lie did not in a written statement call it \u201ca very slight bump\u201d and the court sustained an objection to the question and refused to receive the statement in evidence. Held, that the statement presented no material contradiction of his previous testimony.\n9. Witnesses, \u00a7 210 \u2014when question improper as assuming facts. It is not proper practice for an attorney under the guise of a question to assume as a fact in a case that which has no testimony to support it.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham: & Young, for appellant.",
      "Henry E. Eathbone and Epstein & Mars, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leroy R. Parker, Appellee, v. Crane Company et al., on appeal of Crane Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,959.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1512 \u2014when remarks of court not error. Remarks of court on cross-examination of plaintiff\u2019s expert witnesses in response to the insistence of defendant\u2019s counsel as to the propriety of questions asked, held not error where the remarks merely expressed the views upon what the court based its ruling, and the only real question was as to the correctness of its rulings and not its reasons therefor.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon Chables H. Bowles, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1914.\nModified in opinion filed March 14, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Leroy E. Parker against Crane Company et al. to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff resulting from the negligent driving of an automobile truck owned by defendant. The automobile truck ran into a street car, on the rear platform of which plaintiff was standing, the jolt causing his body to lose its balance and strike the controller or some other part of the car. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for one thousand dollars, defendant Crane Company appeals.\nAlden, Latham: & Young, for appellant.\nHenry E. Eathbone and Epstein & Mars, for appellee.\nSeo 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.\nfSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 405
}