{
  "id": 5374484,
  "name": "Mary Noonan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Philip A. Maus, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Noonan v. Maus",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 103"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3283,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.389804786291015e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5154074619794435
    },
    "sha256": "c09ad2fdc612780d6bcf9e43a0e7e8497c3101945fd7da7b4b38975cdf510b30",
    "simhash": "1:4fe54575d8aca2f8",
    "word_count": 556
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Noonan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Philip A. Maus, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 3 \u2014when instruction as to duty of driver of automobile to give warning proper. It is proper to instruct the jury that it is the duty of a driver of an automobile to give reasonable warning of his approach when meeting teams on the public highway though the only evidence of lack of warning is negative.\n4. Evidence, \u00a7 465 \u2014what is comparative weight of positive and negative testimony. While negative testimony is not of as much weight as positive testimony, it is proper to be considered by the jury.\n5. Instructions, \u00a7 96 \u2014when instruction on credibility of witnesses erroneous. An instruction that: \u201cThe jury are instructed that they are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and if they find and believe from the evidence that any witness had testified falsely as to any material fact, they are at liberty to disregard all the evidence of such witness,\u201d is properly refused where it fails to add, \u201cexcept in so far as their testimony may be corroborated by other credible witnesses, or by the facts and circumstances appearing on the trial,\u201d and also omits the element of \u201cwilfulness.\u201d\n6. Trial, \u00a7 99 \u2014when objection should be made to incompetent testimony. Specific objection should be made to testimony for its incompetency at the time it is offered rather than to wait until it is all in and then move to exclude it.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stonewall J. Walton and Oliver Sent\u00ed, for appellant.",
      "A. C. Bollinger and D. J. Sullivan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Noonan, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Philip A. Maus, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 182 \u2014when evidence of habits of injured person admissible to prove due care. While the general rule is that where there are eyewitnesses to an accident, testimony as to the habits of the person injured is not admissible for the purpose of proving due care on his part, yet where eyewitnesses are lacking to some part of an accident, it is proper to admit evidence of the careful habits of the party injured for his own safety and of his skill and experience in driving.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 208 \u2014when instruction on manner of proving due care and caution for one\u2019s safety proper. On the issue of contributory negligence, it is proper to instruct the jury that due care and caution for one\u2019s own safety are not necessary to be proven by direct and positive evidence, but may be proven also by facts and circumstances appearing on the trial.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Monroe county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuteb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 1, 1915.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Noonan, administratrix of the estate of Dennis Noonan, deceased, plaintiff, against Philip A. Mans, defendant, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate caused by the defendant\u2019s negligent operation of his automobile. From a judgment of $2,500 for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nStonewall J. Walton and Oliver Sent\u00ed, for appellant.\nA. C. Bollinger and D. J. Sullivan, 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": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 125,
  "last_page_order": 126
}