{
  "id": 2868182,
  "name": "Thomas J. Healy, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Healy v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,322",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 4613,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "436d1781ccb57cc32957d4aa478be033a29f11e3b9376dbece43a776058a93df",
    "simhash": "1:d144fa12568dd31c",
    "word_count": 764
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:56.876051+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas J. Healy, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Death, \u00a7 73 \u2014when instruction on negligence properly refused as misleading. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by injuries received while a passenger on defendant\u2019s electric car, an instruction to the effect that evidence that an accident has occurred is not evidence of negligence on the part of defendant, held properly refused, as tending to mislead and confuse the jury, in that it singled out one item of evidence and stated that a certain conclusion would follow therefrom.\n2. Trial, \u00a7 155 \u2014province of jury to weigh conflicting evidence. Where the evidence is conflicting, a question of fact for the jury is presented.\n3. Trial, \u00a7 155 \u2014province of jury to determine weight and truth of evidence. It is always the province of the jury to determine the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses as well as the question as to which of the witnesses is better entitled to be believed.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1410 \u2014when verdict will not be disturbed on review. Where the evidence is conflicting, a verdict of a jury will not be disturbed on review unless clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\n5. Carriers, \u00a7 476 \u2014sufficiency of evidence as to negligent death. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate alleged to be due to the wrongful act of defendant, where the death of deceased was caused by being brought in contact with an iron pole standing near defendant\u2019s street railway track, deceased being at the time of the accident a passenger on one of defendant\u2019s electric cars, evidence examined and judgment for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.\n6. Carriers, \u00a7 480 \u2014whether person on car a passenger as question for jury. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by injuries received while a passenger on defendant\u2019s electric car, the question whether at the time of receiving such injuries deceased was a passenger as alleged is for the jury.\n7. Carriers, \u00a7 480 \u2014when contributory negligence of passenger question for jury. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by injuries received while a passenger on defendant\u2019s electric car, the question whether recovery is barred by contributory negligence is for the jury.\n8. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1512 \u2014when remarks of court on credibility Of witness harmless error. In an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate as a result of the wrongful act of defendant, the remark of the trial judge that a witness for plaintiff who was under cross-examination had stated a matter differently, which, on exception to the remark, was followed by an examination of the witness in regard to the matter adverted to, held not prejudicial where the fact stated by the court was not denied by defendant and was borne out by the record, for the reason that the remark was natural and that when defendant excepted the court may have supposed that counsel took issue with him as to the correctness of witness\u2019 testimony, and hence interrogated witness further, and also for the reason that such statement and examination was a just and reasonable exercise of the judicial function.\n9. Witnesses, \u00a7 178 \u2014when questions put to witness objectionable in form. Questions to a witness containing a positive assertion rather than a query, and which are in the form of a contradiction of the witness, are objectionable.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Franklin B. Hussey and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Caswell & Healy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas J. Healy, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,322.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 8, 1915.\nRehearing denied December 21, 1915.\nOertiorwri denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Thomas J. Healy, administrator of the estate of Michael Moriarity, deceased, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, in the Superior Court of Cook county, to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate as a result of the alleged wrongful act of defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $5,000, defendant appeals.\nFranklin B. Hussey and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nCaswell & Healy, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 51
}