{
  "id": 2889421,
  "name": "Catherine Hutchison, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hutchison v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,811",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 464"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 3560,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.096444929555395e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4266563417403872
    },
    "sha256": "d66e3c5c747b963eaf2f0287067584b69be61fbe893b326a70e6d57e564e603b",
    "simhash": "1:fe776093182c643d",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Catherine Hutchison, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n7. Evidence, \u00a7 410*\u2014when opinion as to time elapsing between injury and condition proper. In an action for personal injuries, in the examination of a physician, where the subject-matter of the inquiry then under consideration was whether paralysis, if produced by an injury, would necessarily follow almost immediately, and also whether or not an injury such as the plaintiff claimed to have sustained was capable of producing paralysis, it was held competent for the witness to express his opinion thereon and to state his reasons for such opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, Warner H. Robinson and James G. Condon, of counsel.",
      "Charles C. Spencer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Catherine Hutchison, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,811.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Samuel C. Stough, Judge,-.presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 28, 1915.\nRehearing denied May 12, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Catherine Hutchison against the Chicago City Bailway Company in the Circuit Court of Cook county to recover damages for personal injuries received while boarding one of defendant\u2019s street cars. The trial resulted in a verdict against the defendant for twenty-five hundred dollars. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict as rendered, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 476 \u2014what considered in determining preponderance. The number of witnesses testifying to a particular fact or state of facts is an important element to be considered in determining where the preponderance of evidence lies, but where in many important and material particulars the testimony of such witnesses is contradictory, inconsistent with established facts and inherently improbable, these elements should also be considered in determining the preponderance of the evidence.\n2. Instructions, \u00a7 151*\u2014when properly refused as covered. It is not improper to refuse an instruction when the instruction refused is sufficiently covered by other instructions given to the jury.\n3. Evidence, \u00a7 410*\u2014when opinion proper as to cause of condition. In an action of negligence where the inquiries on the examination of the attending physician have reference to the relation between certain injuries, which the plaintiff unquestionably received as a result of her fall, and her physical condition as manifested in attacks of partial paralysis, and do not have reference to whether or not the plaintiff is permanently injured as a result of that accident, the inquiries are proper.\n4. Words and phrases,-\u2014what is meaning of word \u201cliable\u201d. The word \u201cliable\u201d means more or less probable.\n5. Evidence, \u00a7 410*\u2014when opinion as to probabilities improper. The opinion of a physician that the plaintiff was \u201cliable\u201d to have recurrent attacks of paralysis and that the degenerative state of the nerve tissue and its surrounding connective tissues might lead to developments that are \u201cliable\u201d to bring about a paralytic stroke is objectionable. The statement of a mere probability of the recurrence is not sufficient.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1499*\u2014when improper evidence harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence as to the probability of future suffering from an injury, Held harmless where there was no complaint that the damages were excessive.\nWatson J. Ferry, for appellant; Leonard A. Busby, Warner H. Robinson and James G. Condon, of counsel.\nCharles C. Spencer, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 488,
  "last_page_order": 490
}