{
  "id": 5382040,
  "name": "A. C. Heister, Defendant in Error, v. Crane Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heister v. Crane Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,432",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 583"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "12d8232fb2c77488512d39c8e7ec81e926d3a4fb6aa25661b9e762c437dfa89a",
    "simhash": "1:055981959d25b2ac",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. C. Heister, Defendant in Error, v. Crane Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. C. Heister, Defendant in Error, v. Crane Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,432.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La But, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1915.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobiles and gabages, \u00a7 2 \u2014when verdict for injury by collision excessive. In an action to recover for damages to plaintiff\u2019s automobile by collision with defendant\u2019s motor truck and for loss to plaintiff\u2019s business while his car was being \u25a0 repaired, where the evidence shows that the cost of the repairs occasioned by the accident did not amount to sixty dollars and no actual monetary loss to his business by inability to use the car is shown, a verdict for three hundred and fifty dollars is excessive.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 420*\u2014when opinion evidence insufficient to show injury to business. In an action to recover for losses alleged to have been caused to plaintiff\u2019s business by his inability to use his automobile while it was being repaired after a collision with defendant\u2019s truck, it is error to permit plaintiff to give an estimate of the value per day of the car to his business, but actual monetary loss must be shown.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. G. Heister against Crane Company, a corporation, for damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff\u2019s automobile by defendant\u2019s motor truck skidding into it.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claim was for damages and for loss to his business while his automobile was being repaired.\nThe automobile repairer by whom plaintiff\u2019s car was repaired testified as to the damage and that his bill for the repairs and two other items not connected with the accident was sixty dollars.\nThere was evidence as to other troubles with the car arising subsequently, but their character and the causal connection of the accident with them was not clearly shown.\nPlaintiff\u2019s damages were assessed at three hundred and fifty dollars, and to reverse the judgment entered therefor defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 627,
  "last_page_order": 628
}