{
  "id": 2870752,
  "name": "Esther Mann, Appellee, v. Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, Receivers, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mann v. Blair",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,013",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3343,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "sha256": "4e238f5e29f7e1500238e24d90f2a8e697483bb9cf035117bcdb3c94a28a62e5",
    "simhash": "1:c95899b6d20b250d",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Esther Mann, Appellee, v. Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, Receivers, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert J. Slater and Frank L. Kriete, for appellants; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Jacob Levy, for appellee; Josiah Burnham, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Esther Mann, Appellee, v. Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, Receivers, Appellants.\nGen. No. 21,013.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 1, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Esther Mann, plaintiff, against Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, as receivers of Chicago Railways Company, defendants, to recover for injuries alleged to have been received while a passenger on defendants \u2019 street car through negligence in its operation. There was a judgment for plaintiff for $3,000, from which defendants appeal.\nThe testimony shows that as the car was proceeding along the street there was a burst of flame from the controller, and panic followed, causing injuries to some of the passengers, including plaintiff. The closely contested point concerns the extent of plaintiff\u2019s injuries, with special reference to whether the injury caused her to suffer from epilepsy. The evidence on this point was contradictory.\nOn behalf of the defendants, Dr. Krohn basing his opinion on his experience, testified that plaintiff could not have suffered epilepsy as the result of the accident in question, saying, \u201cFright does not produce epilepsy.\u201d The attorney for plaintiff, after having identified through the witness a book on nervous diseases written by Professor Starr, asked whether Professor Starr did not say in his book that \u201cabout one-half of the cases of epilepsy is caused by fright.\u201d Questions to the same import were repeated and so framed as to appear to be statements of what was contained in Starr\u2019s book. Objections were made and overruled and exceptions taken. At the conclusion of the taking of testimony, plaintiff\u2019s attorney exhibited the book to the court and jury and stated, in effect, that he proposed to show by Professor Starr\u2019s book that it was therein stated that epilepsy may be caused by fright.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 125 \u2014when use of books by counsel to contradict expert improper. In the cross-examination of a medical witness who bases his opinion upon his own personal observation, the conduct of counsel in asking, after identifying through the witness a scientific book, whether the author of the book did not state contrary conclusions from that of the witness, such questions being so framed as to appear to be statements of what was contained in the book, and in exhibiting the book to the court and jury and stating that he purposed to show by it that such contrary opinion was stated, constitutes reversible error.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 140 \u2014when instructions in action against misleading. In an action against a street railroad company to recover for injuries alleged to have been caused plaintiff while a passenger in defendant\u2019s car, an instruction that the jury in weighing the evidence shall take into consideration the fact that certain witnesses were in defendant\u2019s employ is misleading.\nRobert J. Slater and Frank L. Kriete, for appellants; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nJacob Levy, for appellee; Josiah Burnham, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 280,
  "last_page_order": 281
}