{
  "id": 5382207,
  "name": "Mary Murphy, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murphy v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-02-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,834",
  "first_page": "431",
  "last_page": "433",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 431"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 3732,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "sha256": "a9d0235cc2aabb844f1adfcab3059af6df326d95ac958e35fbac197d6375e2ea",
    "simhash": "1:c2f1a9e41c060088",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Murphy, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby and James G. Condon, of counsel.",
      "Thomas E. Rooney and Ferdinand Goss, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Murphy, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,834.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Benjamin W. Pope, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1915.\nRehearing denied February 16, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Murphy against Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision between two of defendant\u2019s cars while plaintiff was a passenger.\nAt the time of the accident plaintiff was seated at the rear of the car, and upon the first crash jumped up. A second crash following threw her back onto the seat causing the injuries complained of.\nIt was claimed in behalf of plaintiff that a retroflexion of the uterus, discovered by her physician six weeks after the accident, was caused by injuries then received. One of the defendant\u2019s physicians, who had examined her within thirty-six hours after the accident, testified to finding no evidence of pelvic disturbance or conditions indicating that a retroflexion of the uterus was present. Other witnesses in behalf of the defendant testified that her condition was the result of overwork, lack of sufficient nourishment and anemia, and that retroflexion of the uterus could not result from an injury unless the injury was of a severe crushing or piercing character; that the condition of retroflexion is usually the result of a gradual wearing down of the ligaments supporting that organ, and that it frequently occurred among overworked, overtired, under nourished and anemic women.\nPlaintiff testified that prior to the accident she had been in good health, and her physician\u2019s testimony was to the effect that the condition of retroflexion found upon his examination made six weeks or two months after the accident was. due to some external violence, and that such violence so weakened the uterine structures that the uterus prolapsed; and further that there was a relation between the condition of the plaintiff at the time of the trial and the accident in question.\nFrom a judgment for plaintiff for twenty-seven hundred and fifty dollars, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Damages, \u00a7 15 \u2014when condition proximate result of accident. In an action for personal injuries sustained in a collision between cars, on one of which plaintiff was a passenger, which injuries were alleged to have resulted in a retroflexion of the uterus, the evidence was held sufficient to present a question for the jury as to whether the accident was the proximate cause of the condition found, as against defendant\u2019s claim that such condition was the result of natural causes.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1241*\u2014when party cannot complain of refusal of instruction. A party presenting several instructions embodying the same proposition in varying language cannot complain because the court refused one which he considered most important where the others were given.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1514*\u2014when statements of counsel not prejudicial. Statements in the closing argument of counsel for the plaintiff held not prejudicial in view of the character of a question interjected by counsel for the defendant, and the nature of the closing argument made by the latter, the amount of the verdict clearly showing that the jury were not swayed by sympathy, passion nor prejudice.\nCharles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby and James G. Condon, of counsel.\nThomas E. Rooney and Ferdinand Goss, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0431-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 477
}