{
  "id": 2873256,
  "name": "Samuel Rothbart, Appellee, v. Marshall Field & Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rothbart v. Marshall Field & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,905",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2199,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "sha256": "3b8ce222a7c5088450c2b4c739508f8d8365ac9c9a7ba12d522d99d29c095015",
    "simhash": "1:4974c6075c7f94fc",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Rothbart, Appellee, v. Marshall Field & Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank P. Leffingwell and Robert J. Folonie, for appellant.",
      "A. H. Ranes and H. Blaisdell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Rothbart, Appellee, v. Marshall Field & Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,905.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Samuel Rothbart against Marshall Field & Company to recover damages for personal injuries. At the trial the defendant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs evidence, and also at the close of all the evidence. Both motions were denied and proper exceptions taken. . A verdict for five hundred dollars was rendered and judgment being entered thereon, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1392 \u2014what question is presented 5y assignment of error. An assignment of error in denying a motion for a directed verdict presents the question whether there is in the record any evidence fairly tending to prove the material averments of the declaration.\n2. Trial, \u00a7 192 \u2014when denial of directed verdict is error. In an action for personal injuries sustained by a servant while riding on top of a heavily loaded wagon, where the declaration alleged that the plaintiff was struck by a viaduct, held that there was no evidence fairly tending to support such declaration, and a denial of a motion to find a verdict for the defendant was error.\n3. Master and servant, \u00a7 665 \u2014when admission of evidence as to cause of injury is erroneous. In an action for personal injuries sustained by a servant while riding on top of a heavily loaded wagon, a denial of a motion to exclude statements of the plaintiff that he was hit by a viaduct was error, when it appeared that such statements were mere inferences or conclusions.\n4. Master and servant, \u00a7 721 \u2014what is question for jury. The question of the relation of fellow-servants is ordinarily for the jury.\nFrank P. Leffingwell and Robert J. Folonie, for appellant.\nA. H. Ranes and H. Blaisdell, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 165
}