{
  "id": 5372439,
  "name": "Alma Shurlow, Appellee, v. Lester J. Hoadley, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shurlow v. Hoadley",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,847",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 328"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2656,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2988585434903734
    },
    "sha256": "04cd13b1b40f19c549edf12f9488abd530f54d09086511e07f567fa9ea109c82",
    "simhash": "1:b2568a46d268c010",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alma Shurlow, Appellee, v. Lester J. Hoadley, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McDougall & Chapman, for appellant.",
      "E. J. Kelly and L. W. Brewer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alma Shurlow, Appellee, v. Lester J. Hoadley, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,847.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Edgab Eldbedge, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Alma Shurlow against Lester J. Hoadley to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while riding in a buggy with her husband. The injury was caused by defendant\u2019s automobile striking the hind wheel of the buggy when defendant attempted to pass the buggy from behind. The wheel was \u2018 \u2018dished\u201d and that corner of the buggy went down to the ground and plaintiff was injured. From a judgment entered on -a verdict for plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nMcDougall & Chapman, for appellant.\nE. J. Kelly and L. W. Brewer, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3 \u2014when instruction erroneous. In an action for injuries resulting from collision with an automobile in the nighttime, an instruction allowing plaintiff to recover because of a violation of the statute requiring motor vehicles to carry sufficient lights without submitting the questions whether failure to comply with statute caused or contributed to the injuries or whether defendant operated his automobile in a negligent manner, held erroneous.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 423 \u2014when expert testimony whether injury was due to accident improper. In an action for personal injuries permitting expert witnesses to testify, over objection, in answer to hypothetical questions, that in their opinion a fractured rib and a dislocated kidney were due to the accident, held improper as such questions were to be determined by the jury.\n3. Trial, \u00a7 139 \u2014when remarhs of counsel concerning instructions to he offered hy opponent improper. Action of plaintiff\u2019s counsel in his address to the jury seeking to cause the jury to look with suspicion upon the instructions to be given on behalf of defendant, held improper.\n4. Negligence, \u00a7 250 \u2014when admission of improper evidence and improper remarhs of counsel prejudicial. In an action by a wife for personal injuries, where counsel for plaintiff, over objection, succeeded in getting before the jury the poverty of plaintiff\u2019s husband, and an appeal was made to the jury in behalf of \u201cher little family of children,\u201d though the latter remark was withdrawn, held that the effect of such proof and of such remark was prejudicial.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 374,
  "last_page_order": 375
}