{
  "id": 2908179,
  "name": "Lawndale Steam Dye Works, Appellee, v. Chicago Daily News Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lawndale Steam Dye Works v. Chicago Daily News Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,210",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "566",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 565"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7402873496762774e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29722891180142164
    },
    "sha256": "bf60dd043093337b9f705465780a00fce1d77939784544aeeba9a56325c06bb6",
    "simhash": "1:81e1e5f71c4094c4",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lawndale Steam Dye Works, Appellee, v. Chicago Daily News Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellant.",
      "Max Krauss, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lawndale Steam Dye Works, Appellee, v. Chicago Daily News Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,210.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Isaac Hudson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 25, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by the Lawndale Steam Dye Works against Chicago Daily News Company to recover damages to plaintiff\u2019s delivery automobile occasioned by a collision with defendant\u2019s motor truck, alleged to have been negligently operated by a servant .of defendant. There was a verdict and judgment against defendant for five hundred dollars, and it appealed.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3 \u2014what evidence as to collision is admissible. In an action for damages to an automobile caused by a collision with a motor truck, statements made by servants of the defendant from two to five minutes after the collision occurred to the effect that the brakes of the motor truck were out of order and they could net stop it, that they had seen the driver of the plaintiff\u2019s automobile hold out his hand as a signal that he was going to turn, and that the motor truck was going at the rate of forty miles an hour, were merely narratives of completed past events and were not a part of the res gestae, and the admission of such statements as evidence was erroneous and prejudicial, the question as to negligence and contributory negligence being closely conflicting.\n2. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3 \u2014what damages are recoverable in case of collision. In an action for damages to an automobile caused by a collision with a motor truck, the proper measure of damages was the cost of the repairs necessary to be made on the plaintiff\u2019s automobile, and the reasonable value of the loss of the use of it while being repaired.\n3. Instructions, \u00a7 20 \u2014when cautionary instruction may be given. The giving or refusing of an instruction cautionary in character is largely within the discretion of the trial court.\nMatz, Fisher & Boyden, for appellant.\nMax Krauss, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 591,
  "last_page_order": 592
}
