#### Emanuel Levy, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 18,800.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Negligence, § 191 * —when negligence is question for jury. The question of negligence is for the jury unless from the evidence reasonable minds could come to hut one conclusion.

Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph H. Fitch, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 20, 1914.

' Statement of the Case.

Action by Emanuel Levy against Chicago City Railway Company, a corporation, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while riding as a passenger on one of defendant’s ears which collided with another car at a street intersection where the tracks on which the two cars were being operated crossed each other. To reverse a judgment entered on a verdict of not guilty, the plaintiff brings error.

Levy & O’Donnell, 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, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

*652. Carriers, § 461 * —doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. By the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the happening of the collision raises the presumption of negligence on the part of those in charge of and operating the cars, and if resultant injury is established by proof, a prima facie case is made out. When however, such prima facie case is overcome hy the evidence, no recovery can he had on the mere proof of the happening of the accident.

3. Carriers, § 480*—when question whether prima facie case of negligence is overcome for jury. In an action against a street railway company for injuries sustained by a passenger resulting from a collision, when the collision is shown by the proof or is admitted and there is proof before the jury tending to show that it was the result of an inevitable accident and not due to the negligence of any one, it is for the jury to determine whether the prima facie case is overcome hy proof or not.