{
  "id": 2856432,
  "name": "Emma K. Delong, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Delong v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,929",
  "first_page": "432",
  "last_page": "433",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 432"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2199,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "a26c678bca3e388e4f7b8f1544a773c69c7b857e7d0c2f1b27592210ae75fbc6",
    "simhash": "1:bd7e73d4d0822009",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emma K. Delong, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph D. Ryan and Alfred B. Davis, for appellant; John R. Guilliams and Frank L. Kriete, of counsel.",
      "George W. Woodbury and Richard J. Finn for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emma K. Delong, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,929.\n(Rot to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 29, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence \u00a7 368 \u2014when testimony as to physical condition not conclusions of witness. In an action for personal injuries, testimony of plaintiff that there was a falling down of her uterus before the injury and that such trouble had been aggrevated since her injury, held to constitute statements of facts and not of conclusions.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 179*\u2014when physician may testify as to plaintiff\u2019s physical condition after the injury. In an action for personal injuries, testimony of a physician as to plaintiff\u2019s physical condition after the accident, held admissible against the objections of defendant that there was no connection between the injury and plaintiff\u2019s condition as found by the physician and that there was no evidence to show plaintiff\u2019s condition before the accident other than her own statements.\n3. Damages, \u00a7 114*\u2014when recovery for injury to woman not excessive. A verdict for three thousand dollars for injury to a woman passenger on a street car held not excessive, where the evidence should that her ankle was badly sprained and that it was treated by a physician for two months and that she suffered from a prolapse of the pelvic organs.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Emma K. Delong against Chicago Railways Company to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff while she was a passenger on a street car of the defendant\u2019s. The injury was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant in starting the car while she was alighting from it. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for three thousand dollars, defendant appeals.\nJoseph D. Ryan and Alfred B. Davis, for appellant; John R. Guilliams and Frank L. Kriete, of counsel.\nGeorge W. Woodbury and Richard J. Finn for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0432-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 459
}