{
  "id": 5373900,
  "name": "Clara Davenport, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davenport v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,348",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 372"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2363,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "bc25b043928ed22c6973b2be512d3055c6a1f91b668addabca9e2fd41b029bd9",
    "simhash": "1:cb16812618882012",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clara Davenport, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 49 \u2014when Appellate Court may make findings of fact. When the Appellate Court, upon review, determines that the evidence fails to sustain the verdict, it may reverse the judgment with a finding of fact.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Kehoe and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "Peden, Kahn & Murphy, for appellee; R. C. Merrick, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clara Davenport, Appellee, v. Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,348.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 131 \u2014when negligence must Be proved By preponderance of evidence. The plaintiff, in an action on the case against a street railway company for damages for personal injuries alleged to be due to negligence in starting a car which had stopped, must sustain his case by a preponderance of the evidence.\n2. Street railroads, \u00a7 131 \u2014when negligence in starting car not proved By preponderance of evidence. The plaintiff, in an action against a street railway company for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of negligence in starting the car after it had stopped and while plaintiff was trying to get off, fails to sustain his case by a preponderance of evidence where the testimony of plaintiff and another that the car stopped and started with a jerk while plaintiff was attempting to get off was directly contradicted by six witnesses for defendant who testified that plaintiff alighted while the car was in motion.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed January 3, 1916.\nRehearing denied January 17, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on the case by Clara Davenport, plaintiff, against the Calumet & South Chicago Railway Company, a corporation, defendant, for damag\u00e9s for personal injuries sustained while attempting to alight from a moving street car. From a verdict for plaintiff for $10,000, defendant appeals.\nJohn E. Kehoe and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nPeden, Kahn & Murphy, for appellee; R. C. Merrick, of counsel.\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": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 395
}